From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 A6D906502B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 Nov 2020 08:04:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9D66D1FDDF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 Nov 2020 08:04:37 +0100 (CET)
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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 404A41FDD4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 Nov 2020 08:04:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 07FDE42994
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  2 Nov 2020 08:04:37 +0100 (CET)
To: Wolfgang Link <w.link@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20201030090130.87599-1-w.link@proxmox.com>
 <5b2088b1-6dc9-5c90-7c4c-60450861fb07@proxmox.com>
 <687327362.523.1604299095996@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <28d1f1f0-9b7c-7867-ff63-efcf85e1fe3f@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 08:04:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/83.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <687327362.523.1604299095996@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.120 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: [pve-devel] applied: [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in
 the bonding example.
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 07:04:37 -0000

On 02.11.20 07:38, Wolfgang Link wrote:
> Both is possible.
>=20
> In the original version there where three nics used.
>=20
> Personally, I don't like network setup with multiple IP addresses at di=
fferent layers.=20
> They are more complex and harder to debug.


after taking a look myself I'd say that the key point to add eno3 is
rather that we have a "Use a bond as bridge port" already after this
example.

So yes, patch is OK as is: applied, thanks!