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 28BAD1FF0B7 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:38:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 527492145E; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:38:39 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:38:35 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH perl-rs v4 3/6] fabrics: openfabric: enable force_forwarding for ipv6 transit traffic From: "Lukas Sichert" To: "Hannes Laimer" , "Lukas Sichert" References: <20260727135509.14588-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <20260727135509.14588-4-l.sichert@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792165115505 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.531 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: 2DFHD32VOHZRQ3OJPCY2HYSRXF5IP2RT X-Message-ID-Hash: 2DFHD32VOHZRQ3OJPCY2HYSRXF5IP2RT X-MailFrom: l.sichert@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thanks for the response comments inline: On 2026-08-24 09:27, Hannes Laimer wrote: > On 2026-07-27 15:55, Lukas Sichert wrote: >> writeln!(interface, "\tlink-type {link_type}")?; >> } >> writeln!(interface, "\tip-forward 1")?; >> + if cidr.is_ipv6() { >> + writeln!( >> + interface, >> + "\tpost-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/{name}/forc= e_forwarding" >> + )?; > > this ends up on the dummy interfaces, but that never actually get > traffic, this should be on the underlaying interfaces the fabric is > configured on get_interfaces_etc_network_config() calls render_dummy_interfaces() for the dummies, and render_interface() directly for each interface listed in the fabric node section of /etc/pve/sdn/fabrics.cfg. The underlying bridge is listed there, e.g.: openfabric_node: openfab_pve1-cluster interfaces name=3Dvmbr12,ip6=3Dfd10:12::2/64 ip6 fd44::1 So I think the underlying bridge does receive the stanza, but please correct me if I'm wrong. You are right that render_dummy_interfaces() also goes through render_interface(), which is pointless there. I will guard it with "link_type !=3D Some("dummy")" in the next version. >> + writeln!( >> + interface, >> + "\tpost-down echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/{name}/fo= rce_forwarding" >> + )?; >> + }