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 A1AA765008 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:39:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9EBF31FB0F for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:38:55 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 91EFE1FB00 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:38:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5A29542994 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:38:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:38:15 +0100 (CET) From: Wolfgang Link To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <687327362.523.1604299095996@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5b2088b1-6dc9-5c90-7c4c-60450861fb07@proxmox.com> References: <20201030090130.87599-1-w.link@proxmox.com> <5b2088b1-6dc9-5c90-7c4c-60450861fb07@proxmox.com> 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 v7.10.4-Rev12 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.395 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] [pve-docs] Correct the device declaration in the bonding example. 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, 02 Nov 2020 06:39:25 -0000 Both is possible. In the original version there where three nics used. Personally, I don't like network setup with multiple IP addresses at different layers. They are more complex and harder to debug. > Thomas Lamprecht hat am 30.10.2020 15:23 geschrieben: > > > On 30.10.20 10:01, Wolfgang Link wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Link > > --- > > pve-network.adoc | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc > > index 294c201..692326f 100644 > > --- a/pve-network.adoc > > +++ b/pve-network.adoc > > @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ iface eno1 inet manual > > > > iface eno2 inet manual > > > > +iface eno3 inet manual > > + > > auto bond0 > > iface bond0 inet static > > slaves eno1 eno2 > > @@ -369,7 +371,7 @@ iface vmbr0 inet static > > address 10.10.10.2 > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > gateway 10.10.10.1 > > - bridge-ports eno1 > > + bridge-ports eno3 > > or bond0 ? > > > bridge-stp off > > bridge-fd 0 > > > >