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 529261FF141 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 11:03:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B8E3BF2D; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 11:03:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 11:03:28 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Lukas Sichert Subject: Re: [PATCH perl-rs 3/4] fabrics: openfabric: enable force_forwarding for ipv6 transit traffic Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Lukas Sichert , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Hannes Laimer References: <20260601151550.118977-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <20260601151550.118977-4-l.sichert@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260601151550.118977-4-l.sichert@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1780390973476 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.028 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 Message-ID-Hash: CCIQK67BM64WERJSJZOAMFUGKATRHVMW X-Message-ID-Hash: CCIQK67BM64WERJSJZOAMFUGKATRHVMW X-MailFrom: g.goller@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 01.06.2026 17:15, Lukas Sichert wrote: > In a non-full-mesh OpenFabric setup, nodes may need to relay traffic > between peers that are not directly connected. This requires forwarding > ipv6 packets between fabric bridges. With the addition of > 'force_forwarding' to the Linux kernel, this can be done without > enabling 'all.forwarding', which disables Router Advertisements. > > Configure fabric bridges with the required 'post-up'/'post-down' > commands to enable 'force_forwarding'. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Sichert > --- > pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs b/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs > index f96b6b1..785b537 100644 > --- a/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs > +++ b/pve-rs/src/bindings/sdn/fabrics.rs > @@ -596,6 +596,16 @@ pub mod pve_rs_sdn_fabrics { > writeln!(interface, "\tlink-type {link_type}")?; > } > writeln!(interface, "\tip-forward 1")?; > + if cidr.is_ipv6() { > + writeln!( > + interface, > + "\tpost-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/{name}/force_forwarding" > + )?; > + writeln!( > + interface, > + "\tpost-down echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/{name}/force_forwarding" > + )?; > + } > > Ok(interface) > } The bgp fabric also needs force_forwarding AFAIK. @Hannes? Also I just noticed on the bgp fabric we put ipv6 addresses in ifupdown2 inet blocks (instead of inet6) -- shouldn't cause any problems though.