From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018C01FF13A
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:50:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AB34D2143F;
	Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:49:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 10:49:56 +0200
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC proxmox{,-backup} 0/2] fix #7198: count veth uplink for PBS
 running in an LXC
Message-ID: <ak4PH4nIBy05vzjR@luna.proxmox.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?=
 <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>,
	Jakob Klocker <j.klocker@proxmox.com>, pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20260707112008.321788-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com>
 <akzs0lcHmYRKb3Ce@luna.proxmox.com>
 <1783428414.4qssc7elrw.astroid@yuna.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1783428414.4qssc7elrw.astroid@yuna.none>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20260504
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783500588024
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.143 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
 address
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
	SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Message-ID-Hash: PIJW2QGEXHEYIFXBAT7M3ZNNHOMNG2HO
X-Message-ID-Hash: PIJW2QGEXHEYIFXBAT7M3ZNNHOMNG2HO
X-MailFrom: g.goller@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
CC: Jakob Klocker <j.klocker@proxmox.com>, pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pbs-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pbs-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

On 07.07.2026 14:47, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On July 7, 2026 2:14 pm, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > This seems a bit like a band-aid fix to me. Why do we not just get the uplink
> > interface via the default route: e.g. `ip -j route get 1.1.1.1 | jq .[0].dev`?
> 
> there might be more than one relevant interface, that's why we are
> counting "physical" interfaces here, and not just the default one used
> as default uplink?

Ah, missed this -- I thought we only show a single interface...