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 B6A011FF141 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 11:12:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CFDAFC81C; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 11:12:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8db0081a-ac51-44b5-8797-573440ab5406@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 11:11:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH perl-rs 3/4] fabrics: openfabric: enable force_forwarding for ipv6 transit traffic To: Lukas Sichert , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260601151550.118977-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <20260601151550.118977-4-l.sichert@proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1780391475020 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [fabrics.rs] Message-ID-Hash: M2VU7VUKZA6F5JQEZOC34ESSMYJ6ZPZQ X-Message-ID-Hash: M2VU7VUKZA6F5JQEZOC34ESSMYJ6ZPZQ 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 2026-06-02 11:02, Gabriel Goller wrote: > On 01.06.2026 17:15, Lukas Sichert wrote: >> In a non-full-mesh OpenFabric setup, nodes may need to relay traffic >> between peers that are not directly connected. This requires forwarding >> ipv6 packets between fabric bridges. With the addition of >> 'force_forwarding' to the Linux kernel, this can be done without >> enabling 'all.forwarding', which disables Router Advertisements. >> >> Configure fabric bridges with the required 'post-up'/'post-down' >> commands to enable 'force_forwarding'. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lukas Sichert >> --- >> pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs | 10 ++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs b/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs >> index f96b6b1..785b537 100644 >> --- a/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs >> +++ b/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs >> @@ -596,6 +596,16 @@ pub mod pve_rs_sdn_fabrics { >> writeln!(interface, "\tlink-type {link_type}")?; >> } >> writeln!(interface, "\tip-forward 1")?; >> + if cidr.is_ipv6() { >> + writeln!( >> + interface, >> + "\tpost-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/{name}/force_forwarding" >> + )?; >> + writeln!( >> + interface, >> + "\tpost-down echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/{name}/force_forwarding" >> + )?; >> + } >> >> Ok(interface) >> } > > The bgp fabric also needs force_forwarding AFAIK. @Hannes? yes, we also need it there, same thing > > Also I just noticed on the bgp fabric we put ipv6 addresses in ifupdown2 inet > blocks (instead of inet6) -- shouldn't cause any problems though.