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 90C951FF13B for ; Wed, 20 May 2026 15:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8BAA77526; Wed, 20 May 2026 15:03:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 15:02:41 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Dominik Csapak Subject: Re: [PATCH manager] ui: sdn: fabrics: require IPv4 prefix on fabrics without IPv6 support Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Dominik Csapak , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260520125125.251655-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20260520125125.251655-2-g.goller@proxmox.com> <2c64560f-5926-4598-a13f-b9a990537491@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2c64560f-5926-4598-a13f-b9a990537491@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779282145864 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.029 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: 6OUBQZZM5UTBQL5W7KR2FQQV7UN2EMCD X-Message-ID-Hash: 6OUBQZZM5UTBQL5W7KR2FQQV7UN2EMCD 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 20.05.2026 14:57, Dominik Csapak wrote: > because i just looked at this while trying to make a similar change: > > is the reverse not also possible? so ipv6-only fabrics? not currently. We'll have to see how we implement ospfv3 (ospf with ipv6 support) in the future (if that is a separate ipv6-only fabric or integrate into the existing ospf). > i noticed that when i add a fabric i have to enter *either* a > ipv4 or ipv6 address, but the subsequent node edit windows always > show both (even thouh i didn't configure an ipv4 address) > > not sure if that makes sense? Yeah, that's a bit weird. Don't know if we can easily fix this and hide the other input if the fabrics prefix of that address family is empty? > On 5/20/26 2:51 PM, Gabriel Goller wrote: > > For fabricrs that only support IPv4, the IPv4 prefix is the only > > available prefix field. Mark it as mandatory in that case while keeping > > it optional for fabric types that also support IPv6. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller > > --- > > www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/FabricEdit.js | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/FabricEdit.js b/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/FabricEdit.js > > index 1f7bab362075..760925c50b95 100644 > > --- a/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/FabricEdit.js > > +++ b/www/manager6/sdn/fabrics/FabricEdit.js > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.sdn.Fabric.Fabric.Edit', { > > fieldLabel: gettext('IPv4 Prefix'), > > labelWidth: 120, > > name: 'ip_prefix', > > - allowBlank: true, > > + allowBlank: me.hasIpv6Support, > > skipEmptyText: true, > > deleteEmpty: '{!isCreate}', > > }); >