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 873A369F29 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:10:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7D80A1C534 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:10:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (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 DA0581C521 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:10:09 +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 A5308448AE; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:10:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <478a4600-48f4-3fe8-91ec-e2dbb27bd2c8@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:09:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/93.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , alexandre derumier References: <20210914002606.1608165-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <4a34d44143f1c32f38988c478698c094badbc740.camel@odiso.com> <790dd453ab8b0fab53942c7dd4b536d5285a3c00.camel@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <790dd453ab8b0fab53942c7dd4b536d5285a3c00.camel@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.247 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.969 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [vmware.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-common] network: disable unicast flooding on tap|veth|fwln ports 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: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:10:11 -0000 On 15.09.21 17:33, alexandre derumier wrote: > I have looked at other hypervisors implementations (as it don't see to > have problem with hetzner), > > > https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-December/msg00173.html > > > https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-NSX-T-Data-Center/3.1/administration/GUID-C5752084-A582-4AEA-BD5D-03FE5DBC746E.html > > > Both vmware && libvirt have a mode to manually manage fdb entries in > bridge mac table. > > This will work if only 1mac is behind 1 nic, so it should be an option > (nested hypervisor for examples). > > but for classic vm , it could allow to disable unicast_flood && > learning for the tap interface, but also promisc mode on tap interface! > > I was think about add an option on vmbrX or vnetX directly to > enable/disable. As this would be on the VM tap devices it would sound somewhat reasonable to have it as per vNIC setting, but naturally it would then be a bit annoying to change for all; a tradeoff could be to allow setting the default value per bridge, node or datacenter (I'd do only one of those). What do you think? > > I'm going to do tests, testing vlan aware && live migration too. great, thanks for your work on this!