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 C0D691FF0AA for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:55:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4FA72214C3; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:55:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <302c2fd1-1fc4-420d-ac55-66d959d8d330@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:55:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: SPAM: Re: [RFC pve-network 1/1] sdn: apply changes on all nodes in parallel To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" References: <20260709140625.275618-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <081589622ba199dd6576bb504165b50c8e263e81.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <8425f301-48ac-4e24-b356-da38fcc4e686@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.748 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: SH3BMPX3BCT6Z6AQYKUNUM5N7EHKPUAO X-Message-ID-Hash: SH3BMPX3BCT6Z6AQYKUNUM5N7EHKPUAO X-MailFrom: s.hanreich@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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 9/22/26 10:54 AM, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote: > quite possible that graceful restart was not implemented or buggy at > this time. > > (I'm also using route reflectors on my arista core routers) I'll nevertheless implement it as opt-in, makes sense to me, since there could be some unforeseen things here..