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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D947D1FF15C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:37:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7936019A73; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:37:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <b9674b96-f21a-4982-b950-b911293be26a@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:37:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20241112122615.88854-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20241112122615.88854-19-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20241112122615.88854-19-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.038 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 pve-docs v3 18/18] firewall: add documentation for forward direction 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> I am still not really conviced about the 'zone', but this does not have to change with this series. I like the other changes, but I think there are some minor issues. On 12.11.24 13:26, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > diff --git a/pve-firewall.adoc b/pve-firewall.adoc > index b428703..d5c664f 100644 > --- a/pve-firewall.adoc > +++ b/pve-firewall.adoc > @@ -48,18 +48,34 @@ there is no need to maintain a different set of rules for IPv6. > Zones > ----- > > -The Proxmox VE firewall groups the network into the following logical zones: > +The Proxmox VE firewall groups the network into the following logical zones. > +Depending on the zone, you can define firewall rules for incoming, outgoing or > +forwarded traffic. > > Host:: > > -Traffic from/to a cluster node > +Traffic going from/to a host or traffic that is forwarded by a host. > + > +You can define rules for this zone either at the datacenter level or at the node > +level. Rules at node level take precedence over rules at datacenter level. If I am too picky please tell me: First we talk about traffic through the 'host' and then we switch to talking about 'node level'. Shouldn't we at least stick with one word? I think this can confuse users. > > VM:: > > -Traffic from/to a specific VM > +Traffic going from/to a VM or CT. > + > +You cannot define rules for the forward direction, only for incoming / outgoing. Isn't the word 'traffic' missing at the end? > + > +VNet:: > > -For each zone, you can define firewall rules for incoming and/or > -outgoing traffic. > +Traffic passing through a SDN VNet, either from guest to guest or from host to > +guest and vice-versa. Since this traffic is always forwarded traffic, it is only I think the verb is missing in this sentence also i'd change the structure to: Traffic is passing trough a SDN VNet, either from guest to guest, from host to guest or vice-versa. > +possible to create rules with direction forward. > + > + > +IMPORTANT: Creating rules for forwarded traffic or on a VNet-level is currently > +only possible when using the new > +xref:pve_firewall_nft[nftables-based proxmox-firewall]. Any forward rules will be > +ignored by the stock `pve-firewall` and have no effect! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel