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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73710632A3 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:49:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6562A1E9A9 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:49:43 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 34EE21E999 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:49:42 +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 EDADE4481D; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:49:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:49:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Dietmar Maurer To: Stephan Leemburg , Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <494606189.360.1598284149700@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <97fb389a-daae-2787-eac1-39ed2ac23be4@it-functions.nl> References: <1877466395.127.1598159022900@webmail.proxmox.com> <292235591.128.1598159408132@webmail.proxmox.com> <15c9ed01-6e88-b3c6-6efd-cb5c881904fb@it-functions.nl> <169647259.135.1598192643864@webmail.proxmox.com> <4da8f252-3599-6af2-f398-3c7ac0010045@it-functions.nl> <41585d8d-d0be-3c71-b2fa-380731133fe7@it-functions.nl> <522191112.137.1598244794966@webmail.proxmox.com> <97fb389a-daae-2787-eac1-39ed2ac23be4@it-functions.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev20 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.124 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: Re: [pve-devel] More than 10 interfaces in lxc containers 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: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:49:43 -0000 > On 08/24/2020 12:54 PM Stephan Leemburg wrote: > > > On 24-08-2020 06:53, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > >> If I don't put a tag on the device, it seems to behave like a trunk. So, > >> that would solve my problem. _If_ the hosts where openvswitch enabled. > > I am unable to see why you need openvswitch for that? This also works with > > standard linux network. > > Hi Dietmar, > > Oh, that is new for me. > > So, I can have a vlan aware traditional bridge in the firewall that > receives tagged frames and at the same time have the clients on the > specific 'vlans' receive non-tagged frames for their respective pvid? > > How can this be configured in Proxmox? You do not not any special config on the pve host if you do all VLAN related stuff inside the VM.