From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 229E561C39
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 18:41:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 114D0DD89
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 18:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 id 9903ADD7F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 18:40:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5B5E544A8F;
 Mon,  7 Sep 2020 18:40:40 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <20200824164923.12652-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <ac816804-567c-f82d-b574-84db4d6a8278@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 18:40:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/81.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200824164923.12652-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.174 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A            -2.69 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 pve-container] POC : add/del/update ip
 from vnet-subnet-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, 07 Sep 2020 16:41:11 -0000

On 24.08.20 18:49, Alexandre Derumier wrote:
> This is a POC to call ip to retreive ip address from ipam.
>=20
> (it's really just a poc && buggt , it need to be improve for vnet chang=
es, pending config apply/revert,...)

When trying this I got the gateway IP returned for both, as CT IP and gat=
eway IP.
Did not checked this patch closer, but I figured that this behavior is ca=
used by
the SDN code.

Using a simple zone with PVE IPam and snat subnet "10.12.13.0/24" with GW=
 "10.12.13.1"
as test.

On another node, do you think it makes sense to have vnets, subnets, IPam=
, DNS completely
split and separated from each other? I mean, it is flexible, but a user n=
eeds to do a lot
of, almost boilerplate-like, work to get this started.
Advanced users may profit from this, maybe we just need a "simple wizard"=
 for the easiest
beginner case..