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 5C65662CE6 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:49:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 50A7E17088 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:49:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0.it-functions.nl (mx0.it-functions.nl [178.32.167.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B86E917072 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:49:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.100.26.194] (helo=daruma-old.hachimitsu.nl) by mx0.it-functions.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k9sFa-0001M9-W9 for pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:49:43 +0200 Received: from [192.168.254.32] by daruma-old.hachimitsu.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1k9sFX-0002Hx-RO; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:49:39 +0200 To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <1877466395.127.1598159022900@webmail.proxmox.com> <292235591.128.1598159408132@webmail.proxmox.com> <15c9ed01-6e88-b3c6-6efd-cb5c881904fb@it-functions.nl> <169647259.135.1598192643864@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Stephan Leemburg Organization: IT Functions Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:49:39 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <169647259.135.1598192643864@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Language: nl X-Scan-Signature: f7ef7e28393a6294be8f83f145aa7071 X-GeoIP: NL X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav-new X-Scan-Signature: 63c55563914350f3996140fa4236176d X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.131 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 -0.948 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (permerror) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:19:01 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] More than 10 interfaces in lxc containers 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: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:49:44 -0000 Hi Dietmar, To explain a little more. The OVH servers are just rented hardware somewhere in a datacenter of OVH. I have no control over switching, etc. All networking is 'internal'. See the attached drawing. Probably, it is what was on your mind. But I think it's good for me to explain as clearly as possible. And - again - if I am not educated enough about how to use traditional vmbr setups as a vlan trunk, then any pointer to information is welcome. Kind regards, Stephan On 23-08-2020 16:24, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >> If it would be possible to provide a 'trunk' openvswitch interface to >> the CT, then from within the CT vlan devices could be setup from the >> trunk, but in the end that will still create 10+ interfaces in the >> container itself. > Cant you simply use a single network interface, then configure the vlans > inside the firewall? > > IMHO, using one interface for each VLAN is the wrong approach. I am sure > next time people will ask for 4095 interfaces ... >