From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64E3A04A5 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:38:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 889EE9A32 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:38:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:38:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B563A47413; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:38:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <515ccd54-e9dc-ffe3-6413-f6578b2f455d@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 15:38:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com> References: <87v8axbjh1.fsf@gmail.com> <20231027112022.1960451-1-s.lendl@proxmox.com> <20231027112022.1960451-5-s.lendl@proxmox.com> <ef005372a18fe940f6f3cb2c0733aa66ab1084ee.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <ef005372a18fe940f6f3cb2c0733aa66ab1084ee.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.597 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 NICE_REPLY_A -2.344 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC pve-network] do not remove DHCP mapping on stop X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 14:38:35 -0000 On 11/8/23 15:32, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote: > hi, > I'm back from Holiday, and I'll finally time to work on dhcp. > Welcome back! It's also my first day after holiday today. > I wonder if we couldn't add a property on subnet or dhcp, > where user could choose between ephemeral ip (create a vm start / > delete at vm stop), > > or reserved ip > > (reserved a vm|nic create, deleted a vm|nic delete) > That sounds like something we could implement. I've talked to Stefan Lendl today and we thought that ephemeral is something we can leave out for now and implement later (although we definitely wanted to add support for it!) Since we want to have at least basic DHCP support in the next release (which is not far away) we decided to focus on a minimal featureset first and then build upon it.