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 12DBE9B460
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:05:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF2A336329
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:05:56 +0200 (CEST)
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>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:05:55 +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 B597442324;
 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:05:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b99d0d4e-8def-d58e-7727-107578318a21@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:05:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>
References: <20231017135507.2220948-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
 <160a8e8ddfa2ae6b1213543d11e1df521753d1de.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <160a8e8ddfa2ae6b1213543d11e1df521753d1de.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 2.103 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -3.339 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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] [WIP v2
 cluster/network/manager/qemu-server/container 00/10] Add support for DHCP
 servers to SDN
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:05:57 -0000

> Maybe try to see if we can use pve ipam as cache in front of external
> ipam.

Yes, it would also be cool if you could look at implementing the two
newly added methods from the PVEPlugin for Netbox / Phpipam, since you
have more experience with those.

I also looked into merging those two methods, but haven't really found
an elegant solution which is why I left them as separate methods for now.

Kind Regards