From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7125B1FF0B2 for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 11:51:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 48336214C9; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 11:51:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 11:51:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-docs 1/1] network/sdn: update and clean up vlan information To: Thomas Ellmenreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261001130839.203329-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <7064b7db-0a90-4516-b7a8-a83a9a9ae0cc@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.600 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) 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 Message-ID-Hash: VPFMAH4OXIDZE3XCJADUE72FWBUBIPIX X-Message-ID-Hash: VPFMAH4OXIDZE3XCJADUE72FWBUBIPIX X-MailFrom: s.hanreich@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 10/2/26 2:32 PM, Thomas Ellmenreich wrote: > On Thu Oct 1, 2026 at 5:14 PM CEST, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > > [snip] > >>> +Please note that when using a bond with a VLAN-aware bridge, the VLAN >>> +interface should be created on the bridge and not on the bond. Configuring the >>> +VLAN interface on the bond can cause issues for the traffic arriving on >>> +the bond. >> >> Maybe we could make that a general warning? Configuring a VLAN on an interface, that >> is member of a bridge, will "blackhole" all traffic of that VLAN on the bridge. > > [snip] > > As discussed off list, it might make sense to create a new section, > called something like "Common Issues", "Troubleshooting" or "Pitfalls" > and mention this piece of information there. > > I'm quite convinced of this approach, so are there any other "Common > Issues" with VLAN's that we should mention there? I'd say it'd make sense to include the troubleshooting guide? Although I'm not sure if we have similar chapters in the documentation dedicated to troubleshooting already. Otherwise, the public wiki is potentially the better place?