From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC891FF0DF for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:58:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF99C214D9; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:58:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Aaron Lauterer Subject: Re: [PATCH docs] network: Discourage the use of balance-{alb,tlb} In-Reply-To: <8729d155-21d3-4d9c-a4eb-34f88159cd70@proxmox.com> (Aaron Lauterer's message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:31:24 +0200") References: <20260818085228.125344-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <8729d155-21d3-4d9c-a4eb-34f88159cd70@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:58:55 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787911125792 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.891 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: VYIPWEYI3WOATGMVGCWKNU3JFVEHZ2TM X-Message-ID-Hash: VYIPWEYI3WOATGMVGCWKNU3JFVEHZ2TM X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@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: Aaron Lauterer writes: > On 2026-08-18 10:52, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> when used upstream of a bridge with VM traffic. >> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval >> --- >> pve-network.adoc | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc >> index 4209092..092096a 100644 >> --- a/pve-network.adoc >> +++ b/pve-network.adoc >> @@ -519,6 +519,10 @@ If your switch supports the LACP (IEEE 802.3ad) protocol, then we recommend >> using the corresponding bonding mode (802.3ad). Otherwise you should generally >> use the active-backup mode. >> +WARNING: The bond modes 'balance-alb' and 'balance-tlb' are not suitable >> when >> +the local addresses are not known to the host. These bond modes should not be >> +used behind a Linux bridge where virtual machines are connected to. > > not sure how I should interpret the "behind" here. Maybe we can phrase that > differently? > > nic1 & nic2 --> bond0 --> bridge0 --> guests > > I assume it is this setup? > Though reading the text, my brain is inclined to think the bond is between the > bridge and guests... > > Maybe a rephrasing to: > > These bond modes should not be used when a Linux bridge with guests is used in > combination with the bond. I was not entirely happy with that part either. I used the suggestion for v2. Thanks! >> + >> For the cluster network (Corosync) we recommend configuring it with multiple >> networks. Corosync does not need a bond for network redundancy as it can switch >> between networks by itself, if one becomes unusable. Some bond modes are known -- Maximiliano