From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@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 10A3762CD5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 06B2516AF0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E5A3616AE1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:34 +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 B0795447C3;
 Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:24:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Stephan Leemburg <sleemburg@it-functions.nl>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <169647259.135.1598192643864@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <15c9ed01-6e88-b3c6-6efd-cb5c881904fb@it-functions.nl>
References: <d4c75d3b-88e6-36db-9c05-88254a305d4a@it-functions.nl>
 <1877466395.127.1598159022900@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <292235591.128.1598159408132@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <15c9ed01-6e88-b3c6-6efd-cb5c881904fb@it-functions.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev20
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.126 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] More than 10 interfaces in lxc containers
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 14:24:36 -0000

> If it would be possible to provide a 'trunk' openvswitch interface to 
> the CT, then from within the CT vlan devices could be setup from the 
> trunk, but in the end that will still create 10+ interfaces in the 
> container itself.

Cant you simply use a single network interface, then configure the vlans
inside the firewall?

IMHO, using one interface for each VLAN is the wrong approach. I am sure
next time people will ask for 4095 interfaces ...