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 27CB99B3A2 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:51:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EBA5F19786 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:50:45 +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>; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:50:44 +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 AB0E24344C; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:50:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <78b02820-a480-433b-8146-f32f169309b9@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:50:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>, "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, "t.lamprecht@proxmox.com" <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20231117114011.834002-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20231117114011.834002-11-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <c7bb0c66-d789-4bce-86a3-b840a276be9b@proxmox.com> <bd53c06c-ee8d-4a79-a9ca-8c6218b5c215@proxmox.com> <b2aa57480a10b647540262e2642caee18d100f82.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <e79be82a-fc28-433e-ad24-2fda2faa7a95@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <e79be82a-fc28-433e-ad24-2fda2faa7a95@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.274 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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] [PATCH v4 pve-network 10/33] api: add endpoints for managing PVE IPAM 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: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:51:16 -0000 On 11/20/23 13:34, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > Not sure about this, since the endpoint returns the state of the PVE > IPAM and never returns the state of Netbox IPAM, for instance. Since if > you want to inspect that state you would use the Netbox API / Web UI. > For that reason it would make sense for me to use pve in the API path. > >> So, I think that theses should be subpath of subnets >> >> /subnets/<subnetid/ips > > This sounds like a good idea - and is probably better than what I > proposed. I'll quickly talk with Thomas about this. What would you think about adding it to /vnets instead of subnets? Since the API endpoints are calling the VNets functions - which are mostly calling the Subnet-Functions, yes - but they require less parameters and are therefore easier to handle because we don't have to send too much (implicitly available) information to/from the frontend.