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 2EF681FF189
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:49:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 274D41F1B0;
Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:48:52 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:48:19 +0200
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
To: Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <la7nku73haisbl3y6ttqyrdomqiwowc2fnrvln4agbuowfehtl@s4axlepcy6ye>
Mail-Followup-To: Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250328171340.885413-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
<9f0eb0fa-13b5-4df7-adaf-904046a3317e@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9f0eb0fa-13b5-4df7-adaf-904046a3317e@proxmox.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.024 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
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 cluster/docs/manager/network/proxmox{, -ve-rs,
-firewall, -perl-rs} 00/52] Add SDN Fabrics
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>
Cc: 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>
On 04.04.2025 12:55, Hannes Duerr wrote:
>On 3/28/25 18:12, Gabriel Goller wrote:
>>This series allows the user to add fabrics such as OpenFabric and OSPF over
>>their clusters.
>>
>>Overview
>>========
>>
>>This series allows the user to create routed networks ('fabrics') across their
>>clusters, which can be used as the underlay network for a EVPN cluster, or for
>>creating Ceph full mesh clusters easily.
>>
>>This patch series adds the initial support for two routing protocols:
>>* OpenFabric
>>* OSPF
>>
>>In the future we plan on moving the existing IS-IS and BGP controllers into the
>>fabric structure. There are also plans for adding a new Wireguard fabric to
>>this.
>Very nice feature and from my first impression it works really well!
>What I have noticed so far:
>1. if you remove interfaces from a node in OSPF you can't add them
>later [snip]
Umm this is weird, I couldn't reproduce this... Do you get any error or
does the interface simply vanish. Does editing the node again (new
NodeEdit popup) fix the error or is the interface still gone?
> and if you remove the last one you get the following error:
>
>```
>Parameter verification failed. (400)
>*interfaces*: type check ('array') failed
>```
>which could be turned into a nicer message or even allowed (why can i
>not remove all interfaces for maintenance reasons?).
In v2 we allow Nodes without interfaces, so this error shouldn't be
visible anymore.
>2. is there a use-case where i do not want to use an interface
>`unnumbered` nor with an ip address?
>If you also can't think of any i'd suggest restricting it so that the
>user has to either tick `unnumbered` or enter an ip address.
>I think this would help users starting with OSPF, configuring a node
>and wondering why it is not working.
Yep, I just added this. Now you need to specific either unnumbered or an
ip address and specifying both will also lead to an error!
Thanks for the review!
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel