From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A337B1FF141 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:14:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3947713574; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:15:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:15:25 +0100 From: Gabriel Goller To: Stefan Hanreich Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-network 04/10] sdn: write structured frr config that can be rendered using templates Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260203160246.353351-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20260203160246.353351-16-g.goller@proxmox.com> <6d80d1ea-4ea7-40e3-85aa-c5abd431dbdc@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6d80d1ea-4ea7-40e3-85aa-c5abd431dbdc@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1772201706486 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.064 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 1.158 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.306 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.668 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: EVTAHKF2XU5V6K27PQDJ7RUKEKNEAATI X-Message-ID-Hash: EVTAHKF2XU5V6K27PQDJ7RUKEKNEAATI 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: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 27.02.2026 12:41, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > On 2/3/26 5:01 PM, Gabriel Goller wrote: > > + # Initialize router if not already configured > > + if (!keys %{$bgp_router}) { > > + $bgp_router->{asn} = $asn; > > + $bgp_router->{router_id} = $routerid; > > + $bgp_router->{default_ipv4_unicast} = 1; > > This default setting here is wrong, previously we always set it to 0 [1]. > > Tests didn't catch this, because this depends on the order of names of > the controllers due to sorting [2] and in the test cases that would > catch this, the BGP controller generates the config *after* the EVPN > controller (where it is correctly set to 0 in this patch series). > > This led me a bit deeper down the rabbit hole: We generate different > options for the BGP router depending on whether an EVPN or BGP > controller is evaluated first, because the default controller options > differ in the two plugins [3] [4]. > > I guess we should at least introduce a test-case that triggers this for > this patch series and evaluate which default options make sense with > which configuration in a later patch series? > > Because the way it is now you can get different FRR configurations > depending on the name of the controllers... > > [1] > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-network.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/BgpPlugin.pm;h=447ebf1ba74492898b7692988e6d5fb230f55552;hb=HEAD#l86 > [2] > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-network.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers.pm;h=3c1855253c5d4cb26d2d62871a7176d10c3ab2cb;hb=HEAD#l106 > [3] > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-network.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/BgpPlugin.pm;h=447ebf1ba74492898b7692988e6d5fb230f55552;hb=HEAD#l86 > [4] > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-network.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Network/SDN/Controllers/EvpnPlugin.pm;h=cc217126607fddb8be39353aa18be6b68112e3ef;hb=HEAD#l131 Fixed, thanks for the review!