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 E167F1FF13C for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:17:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7C7AA26A6B; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:17:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:17:47 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Hannes Laimer Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ve-rs v2 1/7] sdn: fabric: add BGP protocol support Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Hannes Laimer , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260415111134.124720-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <20260415111134.124720-2-h.laimer@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260415111134.124720-2-h.laimer@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776330988750 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.027 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 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_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: UM4E7CWKOBNGL72PJJVFOVJJ6C7U7GD4 X-Message-ID-Hash: UM4E7CWKOBNGL72PJJVFOVJJ6C7U7GD4 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 15.04.2026 13:11, Hannes Laimer wrote: > From: Stefan Hanreich > > Add BGP as a fabric protocol for eBGP unnumbered underlays. Each node > has a mandatory, globally unique ASN for interface-based eBGP peering. > > Unlike OSPF and OpenFabric, BGP does not have its own FRR daemon - This is a bit wrong, BGP has its own frr daemon, maybe rewrite this as "the bgp router is not exclusive to the bgp fabric"? > the fabric config needs to coexist with EVPN in a single 'router bgp' > block. To handle this, the fabric merges into an existing router > rather than replacing it, using local-as to present the per-node ASN > to underlay peers when the router already runs under the EVPN ASN. > > For IPv6-only nodes, the BGP router-id is derived from the IPv6 > address using FNV-1a, since router-id must be a 32-bit value. Hmm this is a bit weird since the generated address is not really reachable right? How do we handle this (frr bgp docs)?: To derive system-IP and anycast-IP, the default BGP instance’s router-id is used as system-IP and the VxLAN interface’s local tunnel IP as the anycast-IP. Would it be stupid to select a ipv4 address, set it on the lo interface and then just use update-source and set the ipv6 address? > Co-authored-by: Hannes Laimer > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich > Signed-off-by: Hannes Laimer Maybe a few more tests with other existing fabrics, e.g. ospf and openfabric? These are quite easy to add, so adding a few more won't hurt.