From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4326D1FF0B7 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:32:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ED055216EF; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:32:11 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:32:07 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-docs 1/1] network/sdn: update and clean up vlan information From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Stefan Hanreich" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20261001130839.203329-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> <7064b7db-0a90-4516-b7a8-a83a9a9ae0cc@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <7064b7db-0a90-4516-b7a8-a83a9a9ae0cc@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790944328046 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.481 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: LBALBRTROHXPABXUCOOBXMOMNED2OOOL X-Message-ID-Hash: LBALBRTROHXPABXUCOOBXMOMNED2OOOL X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@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 Thu Oct 1, 2026 at 5:14 PM CEST, Stefan Hanreich wrote: [snip] >> +Please note that when using a bond with a VLAN-aware bridge, the VLAN >> +interface should be created on the bridge and not on the bond. Configur= ing the >> +VLAN interface on the bond can cause issues for the traffic arriving on >> +the bond. > > Maybe we could make that a general warning? Configuring a VLAN on an inte= rface, that > is member of a bridge, will "blackhole" all traffic of that VLAN on the b= ridge.=20 [snip] As discussed off list, it might make sense to create a new section, called something like "Common Issues", "Troubleshooting" or "Pitfalls" and mention this piece of information there. I'm quite convinced of this approach, so are there any other "Common Issues" with VLAN's that we should mention there?