From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE821FF140 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:16:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CF0866D93; Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:17:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:17:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ve-rs 8/9] ve-config: frr: implement frr config generation for route maps To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260325094142.174364-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20260325094142.174364-11-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Hannes Laimer In-Reply-To: <20260325094142.174364-11-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774610186803 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.080 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 Message-ID-Hash: 5AZSQZASBN2ITXN4J52OSCEIGVHOEZWY X-Message-ID-Hash: 5AZSQZASBN2ITXN4J52OSCEIGVHOEZWY X-MailFrom: h.laimer@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2026-03-25 10:42, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > Implements conversion traits for all the section config types, so they > can be converted into their respective FRR template counterpart. > > This module contains a helper for adding all route map entries to an > existing FRR configuration. It will overwrite existing route map > entries that have the same name AND order number. But if entries with > the same name, but different ordering, exist they will only be added > to the existing FRR configuration without dropping the other route map > entries. > This currently not relevant either way, because the initial API > implementation will reject creating route maps with names of route > maps that the stack auto-generates. In the future this behavior can > be used for selectively overriding / appending existing Proxmox VE > route maps. > > The helper also automatically orders route map entries according to > their ordering number. This allows for deterministic FRR configuration > output, which is important for tests and convenient for human > readability. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich > --- [..] > + /// Add a list of Route Map Entries to a [`FrrConfig`]. > + /// > + /// This method takes a list of Route Map Entries and adds them to given FRR configuration. > + /// Existing Route Map entries with the same name, but different ordering number will remain in > + /// the configuration. Entries with the same ordering will get merged. > + /// > + /// This behavior is different from Prefix Lists, where we overwrite existing Prefix Lists in > + /// the FRR configuration. The reason for this is that users can override the Route Map setting > + /// in the EVPN controller. > + pub fn build_frr_route_maps( > + config: impl IntoIterator, > + frr_config: &mut FrrConfig, > + ) -> Result<(), anyhow::Error> { > + for route_map in config.into_iter() { > + let RouteMap::RouteMapEntry(route_map) = route_map; > + let route_map_name = RouteMapName::new(route_map.id.route_map_id.to_string()); > + > + if let Some(frr_route_map) = frr_config.routemaps.get_mut(&route_map_name) { > + let idx = > + frr_route_map.partition_point(|element| element.seq <= route_map.id().order()); > + frr_route_map.insert(idx, route_map.into()); with this we would end up having multiple entries with the same seq, frr doesn't care, just bringing it up cause the doc mentions merging > + } else { > + frr_config > + .routemaps > + .insert(route_map_name, vec![route_map.into()]); > + } > + } > + > + Ok(()) > + } [..]