From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF3F41FF13A for ; Wed, 13 May 2026 10:35:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A99BA42BE; Wed, 13 May 2026 10:35:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 10:35:44 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Thomas Lamprecht Subject: Re: [PATCH common/manager/network/proxmox-widget-toolkit 0/4] Extend prefix-list CIDR range Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Lamprecht , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260512112129.224619-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <853b8b2a-eefd-4d00-a8da-c92d03bc370e@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <853b8b2a-eefd-4d00-a8da-c92d03bc370e@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778661231461 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: 5UF66XWQYFPWN7EUHFQVJHUVQANEADZ4 X-Message-ID-Hash: 5UF66XWQYFPWN7EUHFQVJHUVQANEADZ4 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 13.05.2026 00:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 12/05/2026 13:20, Gabriel Goller wrote: > > This is a follow-up on the route-maps and prefix-list series by Stefan. > > The goal is to extend the CIDR range on the prefix-list, making it possible to > > allow prefixes such as 0.0.0.0/0, which is a classic "allow-all". > > > > The current IP64CIDRAddress(ui)/CIDR(api) format only allows a minimum of /8 CIDR. In order > > to keep it backwards compatible and avoid accidentally breaking migration or > > replication, create a new format. > > ack, but putting it into common and widget toolkit has a strong YAGNI > smell and makes it harder to roll out without any real benefit. > > For anything not really generic or when one already knows that it will > be more widely used I'd prefer putting it as close as possible to the > leaf nodes that actually use it in the package dependency tree, moving > them up to a more central dependency is always possible, and can be > much better judged then with an actual use case in mind (e.g., to a > minimal libpve-network-types-perl package, so that it can still live > in pve-network but used basically everywhere). > > Here I'd rather start out with adding the format directly in > pve-network for the backend JSON schema one and pve-manager's > www/manager6/Toolkit.js for the UI ones. Ack, thanks for the review. Sent a new version: https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20260513083430.63529-1-g.goller@proxmox.com/