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 1C2AC62DB9 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:17:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0B65D172E8 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:17:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mxf.4t2.com (mxf.4t2.com [78.47.65.59]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8F30D172DD for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:17:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Status: No X-4t2Systems-MailScanner-Watermark: 1598804020.8999@rH+/eWvNtSYaivaLXSHH+w X-4t2Systems-MailScanner-From: pve@junkyard.4t2.com X-4t2Systems-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-4t2Systems-MailScanner-ID: 98B0B41218.A989D X-4t2Systems-MailScanner-Information: processed at mxf.4t2.com Received: from mailrelay.abyss.4t2.com (mailrelay.abyss.4t2.com [192.168.1.11]) by mxf.4t2.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B0B41218 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:13:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailserv.abyss.4t2.com (mailserv.abyss.4t2.com [192.168.1.12]) by mailrelay.abyss.4t2.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4A532D for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:13:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from morgoth.abyss.4t2.com (morgoth.abyss.4t2.com [192.168.1.22]) (Authenticated sender: x) by mailserv.abyss.4t2.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7707D20683 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:13:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9631e68f5947725e8c6cae3494872cf00df18569.camel@junkyard.4t2.com> From: Tom Weber To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:13:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <15c9ed01-6e88-b3c6-6efd-cb5c881904fb@it-functions.nl> References: <1877466395.127.1598159022900@webmail.proxmox.com> <292235591.128.1598159408132@webmail.proxmox.com> <15c9ed01-6e88-b3c6-6efd-cb5c881904fb@it-functions.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.4-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches 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: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 16:17:53 -0000 Am Sonntag, den 23.08.2020, 12:58 +0200 schrieb Stephan Leemburg: > Good afternoon Dietmar, > > The reason is separation of client's resources on the machine(s). > > In firewalling, it is not uncommon to use a lot of VLAN's. > > For example at one of my clients that I do consultancy for, they > have > more than 60 VLAN's defined on their firewall. probably not helping with your original Problem, but running (such) a firewall in a LXC feels totally wrong to me. Putting the FW in a VM is fine for me, but I surely don't want it to be a part of the hosts network stack. Regards, Tom