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 33DE61FF189
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:53:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7083818526;
Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:53:24 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3a9e9a84-cbf3-4958-b5be-31bcf10d72df@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:53:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
References: <20250328171340.885413-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<c3d5e091-7a92-4f2f-be6a-4753b5691492@proxmox.com>
<dkweqizdmmrc3pf7n7z663eia7dweslqmd3tl6maqi3lg2jokx@sa4rn2slkqq6>
<cf52115c-ee4c-4927-817f-9ba202214f3a@proxmox.com>
<b093f56f-c445-45da-a11a-998030f3a972@proxmox.com>
<6cd7cf05-443a-4fc5-afb3-4d2b5f7334bc@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <6cd7cf05-443a-4fc5-afb3-4d2b5f7334bc@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.670 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
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 cluster/docs/manager/network/proxmox{, -ve-rs,
-firewall, -perl-rs} 00/52] Add SDN Fabrics
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 4/3/25 16:20, Friedrich Weber wrote:
> On 03/04/2025 16:03, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/25 15:44, Friedrich Weber wrote:
>>>>> - when removing a fabric, the IP addresses defined on the interfaces
>>>>> remain until the next reboot. I guess the reason is that ifupdown2
>>>>> doesn't remove IP addresses when the corresponding stanza vanishes. Not
>>>>> sure if this can be easily fixed -- if not, maybe this would be worth a
>>>>> note in the docs?
>>>>
>>>> Umm, I think `ifreload -a` should remove all the addresses? At least it
>>>> works on my machine :)
>>>>
>>>> But I'll check again.
>>>
>>> I took a closer look -- seems I can only reproduce this if
>>> /etc/network/interfaces contains an empty `iface INTERFACE inet manual`
>>> stanza for the interface. Without such a stanza, the IP address is
>>> removed correctly.
>>
>> `manual` means, that IP addresses are configured manually by the user,
>> so if ifupdown2 encounters an address configured on that interface it
>> won't remove it, since you're telling it with manual that it isn't
>> responsible for managing addresses on that interface. So I'd say that's
>> expected with that line?
>
> Hmm, the explanation makes sense, but seems like our installer
> automatically adds [1] an `iface INTERFACE inet manual` stanza for all
> "unused" interfaces? So users may run into this (admittedly minor) issue
> if they used interfaces that were already present at installation time
> for a fabric, and then remove that fabric.
>
> [1]
> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-installer.git;a=blob;f=Proxmox/Install.pm;h=57fd899;hb=95f2bc3ee#l1097
That's a very valid point - and maybe not even that unlikely in
practice. We should either document this, or find a way around it. I'll
try to think of a solution, but this one is probably a bit tricky to
tackle with how the config generation currently works.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel