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 [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2CC71FF16E
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:32:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C5B2B1AD;
	Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:32:55 +0100 (CET)
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Date: Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:31:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <mailman.90.1733743975.332.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
From: Lou Lecrivain via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Precedence: list
Cc: Lou Lecrivain <lou.lecrivain@wdz.de>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
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/>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
Subject: [pve-devel] SPAM: [PATCH pve-network v2 0/4] dhcp: always generate
 dhcp-range
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5276018159276458799=="
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

--===============5276018159276458799==
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <lou.lecrivain@orange.fr>
X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.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 09CC7C1840
	for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:32:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E02F987
	for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:32:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp-79.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.79])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
	for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:32:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost ([176.139.8.107])
	by smtp.orange.fr with ESMTPA
	id KbztttRjtOL3hKbzttpFle; Mon, 09 Dec 2024 12:32:18 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.fr;
	s=t20230301; t=1733743938;
	bh=TpvsodsThHTI9wwZHWCWxHcWl4jcLgJsRuneOLm8TO4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version;
	b=SWyRSw7G4d+Ok77QS3UKxxhITymRl1ya2Ry+/xzkth4q9TFgySfL+Hg+a7q5emDu0
	 bokjXadPKHASJSiEwqEvt8/q48CWr7fsKdIOkNr+ghBCN1gp127Qvb+9Ad5iViMlST
	 GsR6AP5PmcJxscPZ3ZsjJgGcA8zKpUkTBTeZegqqHellPZE4sFfYL6gqp2lDkiFhD+
	 ZtiYhWnv53puHZDL49ymapOR1zV2cyguKkz/pKjkLjWEwxog5P1+VtIBXI8m23p4Y7
	 beF3/5STGjpF4O59tWnu+fg4YEUDAvxYVXZ0XhgfENZZL6tww5EHfslw/+FRkzvomI
	 3SZBtSd61+asQ==
X-ME-Helo: localhost
X-ME-Auth: bG91LmxlY3JpdmFpbkBvcmFuZ2UuZnI=
X-ME-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 12:32:18 +0100
X-ME-IP: 176.139.8.107
From: Lou Lecrivain <lou.lecrivain@wdz.de>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
subject: SPAM: [PATCH pve-network v2 0/4] dhcp: always generate dhcp-range
Date: Mon,  9 Dec 2024 12:31:54 +0100
Message-Id: <20241209113158.7343-1-lou.lecrivain@wdz.de>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  4
	AWL                    -0.113 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
	BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
	DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
	DKIM_VALID               -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	DKIM_VALID_EF            -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain
	DMARC_REJECT              0.1 DMARC reject policy
	FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN  0.001 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
	FREEMAIL_FROM           0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS  0.249 From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different
	KAM_DMARC_REJECT            6 DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on the message and the domain has a DMARC reject policy
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3       -0.01 Good reputation (+3)
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL       -0.01 Mailspike good senders
	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_PASS          -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record

Second version of the patch, changes made as seen with Stefan. 

this patch series re-enables a previously disabled code path in order to
allow IP allocation directly from a prefix when no DHCP ranges are
configured for a subnet.

MfG
--
Lou Lecrivain
WDZ GmbH

Lou Lecrivain (4):
  vnet: do not skip if no range is defined, ask for allocation inside
    prefix instead
  dhcp: always generate dhcp-range for dnsmasq
  fix: register details in pve ipam db for add_next_freeip
  update tests following changes to behaviour: - allocating IPs also
    when prefix-only - PVE IPAM register details for every allocation
    strategy

 src/PVE/Network/SDN/Dhcp.pm            |  3 ++-
 src/PVE/Network/SDN/Dhcp/Dnsmasq.pm    | 23 ++++++++++-------------
 src/PVE/Network/SDN/Ipams/PVEPlugin.pm |  6 +++++-
 src/PVE/Network/SDN/Vnets.pm           |  3 +--
 src/test/run_test_subnets.pl           | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
 src/test/run_test_vnets_blackbox.pl    |  6 ++----
 6 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

-- 
2.39.5



--===============5276018159276458799==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel

--===============5276018159276458799==--