From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6D311FF141 for ; Tue, 19 May 2026 11:21:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4983C36B08; Tue, 19 May 2026 11:20:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1be1f1a8-0e2e-4851-af34-02559655b403@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 11:20:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-network] sdn: frr: add bgpd to SDN-managed daemons To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260519081752.15175-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <3xcytzcaclwjiezm5xe7bsseftgfd4bzo7dz2adrww6am3kvk2@qagxmedrqdbu> From: Hannes Laimer Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <3xcytzcaclwjiezm5xe7bsseftgfd4bzo7dz2adrww6am3kvk2@qagxmedrqdbu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779182441767 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.083 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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: 2LZD62UQ6XDQMJKZ7E7OWLWLQWMLR376 X-Message-ID-Hash: 2LZD62UQ6XDQMJKZ7E7OWLWLQWMLR376 X-MailFrom: h.laimer@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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2026-05-19 10:54, Gabriel Goller wrote: > On 19.05.2026 10:17, Hannes Laimer wrote: >> Every sdn-apply on a node that has a BGP fabric configured trips the >> set_daemon_status() guard with "bgpd is not SDN managed", aborting FRR >> config generation. The Rust enabled_daemons() reports bgpd for BGP >> fabrics, but the Perl allowlist was only updated for OSPF and OpenFabric >> when those fabric types were originally added. >> >> Fixes: 9d8533d ("sdn: fabrics: register bgp as a fabric protocol type") >> Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer >> --- >> src/PVE/Network/SDN/Frr.pm | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Frr.pm b/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Frr.pm >> index 7c60d28..642610c 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Frr.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Frr.pm >> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ sub restart { >> my $SDN_DAEMONS_DEFAULT = { >> ospfd => 0, >> fabricd => 0, >> + bgpd => 0, >> }; >> >> =head3 set_daemon_status(\%daemons, $set_default) >> -- >> 2.47.3 > > Hmm maybe I'm misremembering how this works, but shouldn't we set this to 1, so > that when removing a bgp fabric, the bgpd daemon stays enabled? Because the > legacy bgp controller and evpn controllers don't do the daemon check afaik and > just rely on the fact that it's always enabled? right.. good catch! this should be `1` will send a v2