From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50ADF77874 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:36:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3E420D7FE for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:35:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B742ED7EC for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:35:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7C3C64290D for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:35:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:35:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Oguz Bektas References: <20210428111608.694745-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210428111608.694745-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.006 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 docs] pveproxy: improve LISTEN_IP doc X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:36:12 -0000 On 28.04.21 13:16, Oguz Bektas wrote: > * fix small typo > * add details for link-local addresses > * mention that pveproxy needs to be restarted > > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > --- > pveproxy.adoc | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/pveproxy.adoc b/pveproxy.adoc > index 08c5f63..b9f8ade 100644 > --- a/pveproxy.adoc > +++ b/pveproxy.adoc > @@ -71,10 +71,18 @@ exposure to the public internet: > > LISTEN_IP="192.0.2.1" > > -Similarly you can also set a n IPv6 address: > +Similarly you can also set an IPv6 address: > > LISTEN_IP="2001:db8:85a3::1" > > +And for a link-local IPv6 address on vmbr0 (interface name is necessary in this case): Does not reads like an actual sentence... I'd write something a long the lines of: "Note, if you want to specify a link-local IPv6 address, you need to provide the interface name itself:" > + > + LISTEN_IP="fe80::d8ee:34ff:fe37:4579%vmbr0" > + > +After the change you have to restart `pveproxy` for it to take effect: I'd specifically state that a reload is not enough and then add a small warning that a restart can stop some existing workers (not all, but e.g., shell connection is stopped and reconnected which may loose info on CTs without a screen/tmux instance running). Also, there's a short time window where no new connections are accepted IIRC (albeit I was the one fixing that for reload it's been to long since then, so not sure anymore) > + > + systemctl restart pveproxy and spiceproxy? > + > WARNING: The nodes in a cluster need access to `pveproxy` for communication, > possibly on different sub-nets. It is **not recommended** to set `LISTEN_IP` on > clustered systems. >