From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B283C1FF17C
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed,  9 Jul 2025 14:45:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC635BD2A;
	Wed,  9 Jul 2025 14:46:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <06711a8b-4b02-4936-af7e-49087106c418@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 14:45:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
References: <20250611144903.200940-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
 <20250611144903.200940-7-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
 <f3xma7zwv72win7idxnw3eeh2mpqjiqtq2ljpibqywqrdjxfty@wg2lpuht5q36>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3xma7zwv72win7idxnw3eeh2mpqjiqtq2ljpibqywqrdjxfty@wg2lpuht5q36>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.013 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 0.001 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 0.001 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 0.001 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container v2 06/11] configure static IP in
 LXC config for custom entrypoint
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 25/06/2025 10:26, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> I think this should be handled with a separate key in the containers
> network configuration. Maybe a "setup" property which defaults to
> "container" and can be set to "host" (not sure if we ever need more,
> if we know we don't, it could be a boolean...)

I agree that checking the entrypoint directly in multiple places, to
determine whether IP configuration should be managed by the host, is not
ideal. But setting a property for every net[n] individually would also
require us to set that property every time a network interface is added.
So instead in v3 I added an "ipmanagehost" boolean directly to pct.conf.
If we want we could still add a property to the network configuration
that overrides this behaviour.



_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel