From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1F231FF146
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 14:48:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 844392143A;
	Tue, 07 Jul 2026 14:48:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 14:47:33 +0200
From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC proxmox{,-backup} 0/2] fix #7198: count veth uplink for PBS
 running in an LXC
To: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>, Jakob Klocker
	<j.klocker@proxmox.com>
References: <20260707112008.321788-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com>
	<akzs0lcHmYRKb3Ce@luna.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <akzs0lcHmYRKb3Ce@luna.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1783428414.4qssc7elrw.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783428449845
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
	SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Message-ID-Hash: 3RC6G4K7DSUPP6GUTYZ7J3LVYSDXSEKH
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3RC6G4K7DSUPP6GUTYZ7J3LVYSDXSEKH
X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pbs-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On July 7, 2026 2:14 pm, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> This seems a bit like a band-aid fix to me. Why do we not just get the up=
link
> interface via the default route: e.g. `ip -j route get 1.1.1.1 | jq .[0].=
dev`?

there might be more than one relevant interface, that's why we are
counting "physical" interfaces here, and not just the default one used
as default uplink?