From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5861FF0E5 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C584A2132B; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:31:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8729d155-21d3-4d9c-a4eb-34f88159cd70@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:31:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH docs] network: Discourage the use of balance-{alb,tlb} Content-Language: en-US To: Maximiliano Sandoval , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260818085228.125344-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <20260818085228.125344-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787815876068 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.010 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: IJJHZIIJK4QLKSLA7NXVOX65UGYIJRGD X-Message-ID-Hash: IJJHZIIJK4QLKSLA7NXVOX65UGYIJRGD X-MailFrom: a.lauterer@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 2026-08-18 10:52, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > when used upstream of a bridge with VM traffic. > > Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval > --- > pve-network.adoc | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/pve-network.adoc b/pve-network.adoc > index 4209092..092096a 100644 > --- a/pve-network.adoc > +++ b/pve-network.adoc > @@ -519,6 +519,10 @@ If your switch supports the LACP (IEEE 802.3ad) protocol, then we recommend > using the corresponding bonding mode (802.3ad). Otherwise you should generally > use the active-backup mode. > > +WARNING: The bond modes 'balance-alb' and 'balance-tlb' are not suitable when > +the local addresses are not known to the host. These bond modes should not be > +used behind a Linux bridge where virtual machines are connected to. not sure how I should interpret the "behind" here. Maybe we can phrase that differently? nic1 & nic2 --> bond0 --> bridge0 --> guests I assume it is this setup? Though reading the text, my brain is inclined to think the bond is between the bridge and guests... Maybe a rephrasing to: These bond modes should not be used when a Linux bridge with guests is used in combination with the bond. > + > For the cluster network (Corosync) we recommend configuring it with multiple > networks. Corosync does not need a bond for network redundancy as it can switch > between networks by itself, if one becomes unusable. Some bond modes are known