From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF90D1FF16B
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:03:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23FE335CA;
Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:03:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b093f56f-c445-45da-a11a-998030f3a972@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:03:22 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>, Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
References: <20250328171340.885413-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<c3d5e091-7a92-4f2f-be6a-4753b5691492@proxmox.com>
<dkweqizdmmrc3pf7n7z663eia7dweslqmd3tl6maqi3lg2jokx@sa4rn2slkqq6>
<cf52115c-ee4c-4927-817f-9ba202214f3a@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf52115c-ee4c-4927-817f-9ba202214f3a@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.671 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH cluster/docs/manager/network/proxmox{, -ve-rs,
-firewall, -perl-rs} 00/52] Add SDN Fabrics
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 4/3/25 15:44, Friedrich Weber wrote:
>>> - when removing a fabric, the IP addresses defined on the interfaces
>>> remain until the next reboot. I guess the reason is that ifupdown2
>>> doesn't remove IP addresses when the corresponding stanza vanishes. Not
>>> sure if this can be easily fixed -- if not, maybe this would be worth a
>>> note in the docs?
>>
>> Umm, I think `ifreload -a` should remove all the addresses? At least it
>> works on my machine :)
>>
>> But I'll check again.
>
> I took a closer look -- seems I can only reproduce this if
> /etc/network/interfaces contains an empty `iface INTERFACE inet manual`
> stanza for the interface. Without such a stanza, the IP address is
> removed correctly.
`manual` means, that IP addresses are configured manually by the user,
so if ifupdown2 encounters an address configured on that interface it
won't remove it, since you're telling it with manual that it isn't
responsible for managing addresses on that interface. So I'd say that's
expected with that line?
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel