From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 314D21FF13F for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:19:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8F9CB7EF4; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:19:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <674d364a-5a40-446f-b94c-d71d6d6b5e3d@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:19:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ve-rs v5 2/8] frr: add proxmox-frr-templates package that contains templates To: Gabriel Goller , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260310120705.150425-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20260310120705.150425-3-g.goller@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Hannes Laimer In-Reply-To: <20260310120705.150425-3-g.goller@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773303528590 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.997 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.408 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.819 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.903 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: WLANLCAAXQNFDRS436OOZOM2PBDTXEAL X-Message-ID-Hash: WLANLCAAXQNFDRS436OOZOM2PBDTXEAL X-MailFrom: h.laimer@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 2026-03-10 13:09, Gabriel Goller wrote: > This debian package contains the jinja template files used to generate > the frr config. Currently only the fabrics template files are here, the > rest will be added in later commits. When installing this package the > templates will be installed to `/usr/share/proxmox-frr/templates/`. > `proxmox-frr` will then use `include_str!` to embed the templates into > the binary. > > This package will only be published to the `devel` channel. > > Co-authored-by: Stefan Hanreich > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller > --- [..] > diff --git a/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja b/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..61fbf3256a19 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/proxmox-frr-templates/templates/route_maps.jinja > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > +{% for name, routemap_list in routemaps | items %} > +{% for routemap in routemap_list %} > +! > +route-map {{ name }} {{ routemap.action }} {{ routemap.seq }} > +{% for match in routemap.matches %} > +{% if match.value.list_type == "prefixlist" %} > + match {{ match.protocol_type }} {{ match.match_type }} prefix-list {{ match.value.list_name }} > +{% elif match.value.list_type == "accesslist" %} > + match {{ match.protocol_type }} {{ match.match_type }} {{ match.value.list_name }} I think a ``` {% elif match.match_type == "next-hop" %} match {{ match.protocol_type }} next-hop {{ match.value }} ``` is missing. `RouteMapMatchInnter` does produce a ``` {"match_type": "next-hop", "value": "10.0.0.1", ...} ``` for NextHop(..) variants, no? I don't think this is used anywhere yet tough, still... > +{% endif %} > +{% endfor %} > +{% for set in routemap.sets %} > + set {{ set.set_type }} {{ set.value }} > +{% endfor %} > +{% for line in routemap.custom_frr_config %} > +{{ line }} > +{% endfor %} > +exit > +{% endfor %} > +{% endfor %}