From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 0C8359264E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:02:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 034F8182A5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:02:19 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:02:17 +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 AC6DA43515
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:02:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <cb5ea511-490a-b409-5751-99f2b4c946e9@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:02:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/105.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20220602092251.1393709-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
 <20220602092251.1393709-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220602092251.1393709-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.008 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH docs v2 1/3] network: remove ifup
 ifdown as it won't reattach guests
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 16:02:49 -0000

Am 02/06/2022 um 11:22 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
> Mentioning 'ifup' and 'ifdown' can lead to users running into situations
> where they take down one interface, for example an vmbrX. In this
> situation the connection to the guests will be lost and not
> reestablished automatically if the interface is brought up again with
> 'ifup'. The better way to apply network changes is to run 'ifreload -a'.
> 

all true, but in the light of the pitfalls it is actually better to actively
warn, not just remove. Done so in a follow-up.

> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  pve-network.adoc | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!