From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FF51FF146 for ; Wed, 13 May 2026 00:09:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1FE39300D2; Wed, 13 May 2026 00:09:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <853b8b2a-eefd-4d00-a8da-c92d03bc370e@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 00:09:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH common/manager/network/proxmox-widget-toolkit 0/4] Extend prefix-list CIDR range To: Gabriel Goller , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260512112129.224619-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20260512112129.224619-1-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: 1778623666467 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.003 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 Message-ID-Hash: D4XMQULEIPSROVEFHKNW5FONGVMQH2JD X-Message-ID-Hash: D4XMQULEIPSROVEFHKNW5FONGVMQH2JD X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 12/05/2026 13:20, Gabriel Goller wrote: > This is a follow-up on the route-maps and prefix-list series by Stefan. > The goal is to extend the CIDR range on the prefix-list, making it possible to > allow prefixes such as 0.0.0.0/0, which is a classic "allow-all". > > The current IP64CIDRAddress(ui)/CIDR(api) format only allows a minimum of /8 CIDR. In order > to keep it backwards compatible and avoid accidentally breaking migration or > replication, create a new format. ack, but putting it into common and widget toolkit has a strong YAGNI smell and makes it harder to roll out without any real benefit. For anything not really generic or when one already knows that it will be more widely used I'd prefer putting it as close as possible to the leaf nodes that actually use it in the package dependency tree, moving them up to a more central dependency is always possible, and can be much better judged then with an actual use case in mind (e.g., to a minimal libpve-network-types-perl package, so that it can still live in pve-network but used basically everywhere). Here I'd rather start out with adding the format directly in pve-network for the backend JSON schema one and pve-manager's www/manager6/Toolkit.js for the UI ones.