From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 EDC7F95351 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:08:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CE7665B06 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:07:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lana.proxmox.com (unknown [94.136.29.99]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:07:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lana.proxmox.com (Postfix, from userid 10043) id E62B42C0BF3; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:07:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Hanreich To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:07:33 +0200 Message-Id: <20240412080737.34521-3-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240412080737.34521-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20240412080737.34521-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.335 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 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods RDNS_NONE 0.793 Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-docs v4 2/6] network: update specification for bridge names X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:08:11 -0000 Reviewed-by: Fabian Grünbichler Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich --- pve-network.adoc | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc index d1ec64b..ef586ec 100644 --- a/pve-network.adoc +++ b/pve-network.adoc @@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ page contains the complete format description. All {pve} tools try hard to keep direct user modifications, but using the GUI is still preferable, because it protects you from errors. -A 'vmbr' interface is needed to connect guests to the underlying physical -network. They are a Linux bridge which can be thought of as a virtual switch -to which the guests and physical interfaces are connected to. This section -provides some examples on how the network can be set up to accomodate different -use cases like redundancy with a xref:sysadmin_network_bond['bond'], +A Linux bridge interface (commonly called 'vmbrX') is needed to connect guests +to the underlying physical network. It can be thought of as a virtual switch +which the guests and physical interfaces are connected to. This section provides +some examples on how the network can be set up to accomodate different use cases +like redundancy with a xref:sysadmin_network_bond['bond'], xref:sysadmin_network_vlan['vlans'] or xref:sysadmin_network_routed['routed'] and xref:sysadmin_network_masquerading['NAT'] setups. @@ -75,7 +75,9 @@ We currently use the following naming conventions for device names: scheme is used for {pve} hosts which were installed before the 5.0 release. When upgrading to 5.0, the names are kept as-is. -* Bridge names: `vmbr[N]`, where 0 ≤ N ≤ 4094 (`vmbr0` - `vmbr4094`) +* Bridge names: Commonly `vmbr[N]`, where 0 ≤ N ≤ 4094 (`vmbr0` - `vmbr4094`), +but you can use any alphanumeric string that starts with a character and is at +most 10 characters long. * Bonds: `bond[N]`, where 0 ≤ N (`bond0`, `bond1`, ...) -- 2.39.2