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 8CE71947E7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:52:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 661576A7B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:52:06 +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>; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:52:05 +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 92078448AD;
 Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:52:05 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <95411a42-01b8-4a2b-aa06-e378ed7a9a35@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:52:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>,
 "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231219083216.2551645-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <78a6d299-8b92-4ef1-95b6-c99c6f3f9e90@proxmox.com>
 <248b6df66af9dc843b7998898a43bb9ddb007f58.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
 <ecf0948f-06d2-4299-adb2-019550c2f38b@proxmox.com>
 <6c7a0c383c6aee77689433815775e27f5259da91.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <6c7a0c383c6aee77689433815775e27f5259da91.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.490 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-network 0/7] add dhcp support for all
 zones
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: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:52:36 -0000


On 2/22/24 11:41, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote:

> what is the output of "ifreload -a -d"  ?

nothing mentioning ip-forward sadly, I had already looked at
/var/log/ifupdown2 to get an idea of what's going wrong but I couldn't
find anything mentioned there as well (I think the output is the
same..). I think it might just get ignored when applying - but not when
checking.

I guess I'll have to dig deeper into ifupdown2...

> mmm, good catch, I'll look to add a check for this.
> I'll check too for vlan zone, with non vlan-aware bridge without
> interface.

Yes, it shouldn't be too hard to check. I can also do this while I'm at it.

> BTW, for dnsmasq + ipv6 with evpn/vrf, we need to add a patch.
> 
> What do you think about providing a proxmox package for dnsmasq with
> this patch,  + remove the default dnsmasq service.  (as currently it's
> a little bit hacky, with manually disabling the main service)

It's hard to tell - not sure if we want to take on the work of
maintaining a separate dnsmasq package. I'll try and talk with Wolfgang
/ Thomas about this (or maybe they're reading this and can chime in?).