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 032D41FF0AF for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 18:55:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 900FE215F8; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 18:55:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 18:55:51 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Stefan Hanreich Subject: Re: [RFC manager/network/proxmox{-ve-rs,-perl-rs} 00/15] SDN VRF support Message-ID: References: <20260821140404.322081-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <7d731bdf-dbc3-465e-b8ba-ce6531c8ee41@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7d731bdf-dbc3-465e-b8ba-ce6531c8ee41@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20260504 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792774553040 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.248 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: LRCVHTBIZDSEB66QFFVXL25LD3P7YTZH X-Message-ID-Hash: LRCVHTBIZDSEB66QFFVXL25LD3P7YTZH X-MailFrom: g.goller@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: On 21.10.2026 18:13, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > Ran this on a test cluster: > > * tested OSPF in a simple zone VRF > * tested BGP in a simple zone VRF > * tested DHCP in a simple zone with VRF > * tried SNAT (see below) for a simple zone with custom VRF Thanks for the review! > Found the following issues: > > * status reporting for OSPF interfaces/neighbors is broken if a VRF is > assigned: > > error parsing ospf interfaces: missing field `interfaces` > > JSON seems to be nested an addtional level Fixed this. > * UI for creating the simple zone seems ugly. I'd invert the logic, move > the option to advanced and call it something snappier like 'dedicated VRF'. Yeah, dunno had a brain aneurysm there. Inverted it and renamed to dedicated-vrf, this is much easier to understand. Also implemented that you can put an interface into a vrf. The vrf field is disabled for interfaces which are in a fabric. Also implemented static routes in the simple zone. Will have a look at the SNAT stuff next week. > [snip]