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 5E9461FF0B4 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2026 11:45:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 09863215FC; Tue, 10 Nov 2026 11:44:56 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 11:44:52 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH ifupdown2 v2 0/2] ifupdown2 vxlan fixes From: "Lukas Sichert" To: "Gabriel Goller" , References: <20261106-fix_8299_only-v2-0-19b90284c405@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261106-fix_8299_only-v2-0-19b90284c405@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1794307492117 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.458 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: 2JEHF67AJKUXVQ7HVCRJTN27WMF27PKM X-Message-ID-Hash: 2JEHF67AJKUXVQ7HVCRJTN27WMF27PKM 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 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 2026-11-06 18:15, Gabriel Goller wrote: > This series avoids unnecessary vxlan and vlan device recreation on reload > and fixes IPv6 peer detection in the vxlan fdb. More details are in the > commit messages. > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller > --- > Wasn't sure if I should leave the old patch and make a new one > overriding it or if I should delete it. Went for the second version, let > me know if I should do it differently. In my opinion removing the old patch is nicer to read, because the diff then shows the change in behavior directly. Also, if one were to upstream this patch, it is nicer not to have to drop two patches, neither of which matches upstream. Tested on two nodes with a vxlan device and a vlan device on a bridge. Changing vxlan-remoteip (add, remove, remove all), vxlan-ttl and, on the vlan, address and mtu was applied by ifreload without recreating the device, and the resulting settings matched the config. Changing vxlan-id and removing an address with address-purge no still recreated the device. With an IPv6 vxlan (two IPv6 vxlan-remoteip entries) removing one remote now also removes its fdb entry while the device is kept. Therefore consider: Reviewed-by: Lukas Sichert Tested-by: Lukas Sichert