From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E021F1FF141
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 May 2026 10:54:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A99E35B48;
	Tue, 19 May 2026 10:54:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 10:54:54 +0200
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: Hannes Laimer <h.laimer@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-network] sdn: frr: add bgpd to SDN-managed daemons
Message-ID: <3xcytzcaclwjiezm5xe7bsseftgfd4bzo7dz2adrww6am3kvk2@qagxmedrqdbu>
Mail-Followup-To: Hannes Laimer <h.laimer@proxmox.com>,
	pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20260519081752.15175-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20260519081752.15175-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779180881666
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.028 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: CTWYCEGUPJXPKYXSH57PWN5UI5GAI6AG
X-Message-ID-Hash: CTWYCEGUPJXPKYXSH57PWN5UI5GAI6AG
X-MailFrom: g.goller@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: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

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 <h.laimer@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  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?