From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.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 5EFE1F398 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:12:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 187794C90 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:11:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:11:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id h16so2166176wrz.12 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:11:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RwkhNCN0zh/HPDu2rVOid/RJ9Fi/eAbIuF06BxDhGzg=; b=X11mH3CEUy4P28hhdaV68aTzgwtbq2KX1NXF+1QKFpeDAfbgkuTRcWgTNF2LJJHV5u J9ziiW4M4TWt1KCl9Lb0FtKIRxpLT+qdoft+ieuuzd9v0NGL+03O2IAo+uwBpKUMGvDz e/rZxrlKD8s8VrqL8OcHqrWPSUtbromUlYOzoKoQoNiL9uCVK9F6K79XxaId46dXw95T udtSIJV1GPFbcrCld7sYH0FLj8EmLWnoBK0WCgDaOc/C+xI3VHlKdHog7PWn/paAOdPi TRGp07I2c7qgkx/ivXOxFsxu+jITR/UVwFS/dB7RqHxFMDNtZp+XhVMeBUb5FJwb87lA ILBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=RwkhNCN0zh/HPDu2rVOid/RJ9Fi/eAbIuF06BxDhGzg=; b=tVBfAk+YoEkCabJ8YH5a0e1mqfZ4nIUOnCtU0ktZ5/rh07VUIJgvre3u2ynxdIoFYz btaH24JGYaRt5Z6K27835u5WMOuNyrx/Un/LdVJ+kywLD/gU9vT5arFC/jRnD/RX4Eca mv5qRHqe/TQ+aOKdj9uZwTn7cqDzbiqjlXOVITkNpwKHp0iVKbj+3jE3lLwV2cUcu7TD acvK9/8VX509oOh4xPoBeB4Y7CLioxeCCjgmFq1gjytCnrv2CTadQlQCY97zhI4M4J6G ksLTikhG2IuFbl8QyASoo4+ukEC7o5eR2XsG5y5ZFpdAAHc2zn1P5O6XXCE8GK5Sb2Db wWnA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plpB8+IHdbFxRKiQmUHqEV6amX6YOn2PqQzFE007OYZEuWZk54z WVBM3X1XP5LFTvw7kf82mOk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7CH+urvqoU/Fl5f+zGrNsjqjNmwXcPP+Oim696BIBiwnYL8Mlz0k3n3AYn+ReP3e6wm+gwUQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f091:0:b0:242:3602:5619 with SMTP id n17-20020adff091000000b0024236025619mr16886977wro.48.1671091906724; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:11:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:8070:a280:2d80:5605:dbff:fe76:161d? ([2a02:8070:a280:2d80:5605:dbff:fe76:161d]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c7-20020adfe707000000b0024cb961b6aesm5065007wrm.104.2022.12.15.00.11.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:11:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <d80eadf7-d068-3695-b55c-e944b6b5079b@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:11:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Reply-To: uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com Content-Language: de-DE To: Mark Schouten <mark@tuxis.nl>, Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> References: <0792849c-8d3f-e0de-460c-e89245c8d12b@gmail.com> <em7e8e2199-2131-46e9-8480-80695f479cc6@4148cfe7.com> From: Uwe Sauter <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <em7e8e2199-2131-46e9-8480-80695f479cc6@4148cfe7.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.249 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_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider KAM_EVIL_NUMBERS4 1 Phone Numbers used by scammers NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] How to configure which network is used for migration X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 08:12:24 -0000 Mark, Alexandre, thanks for pointing that out. @Mark: as these are private, isolated networks I'm unsure how IPv6 would help with the issue. I could use link-local addresses (fe80::) but would need to append to every request the "%interface" postfix in order to tell the system which interface to use… Using unique local unicast addresses is no different in using private IPv4 networks… So please enlighten me how IPv6 would help in that situation. Besides that I agree – we should switch to IPv6 where it is sensible and possible (from an organization's point of view). Regards, Uwe Am 15.12.22 um 09:04 schrieb Mark Schouten: > Hi, > > Some unsolicited advice, switch to IPv6 ;) > > As for your question, you can set that up in the datacenter -> options tab. See > https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/pve-admin-guide.html#_guest_migration > > Regards, > > — > Mark Schouten, CTO > Tuxis B.V. > mark@tuxis.nl / +31 318 200208 > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From "Uwe Sauter" <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com> > To "Proxmox VE user list" <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> > Date 12/15/2022 8:23:41 AM > Subject [PVE-User] How to configure which network is used for migration > >> Good morning, >> >> I'm currently replacing one PVE cluster with another. The new hardware has a bunch of different >> network interfaces that I want to use to separate VM traffic from Corosync/Ceph/migration traffic. >> >> Is there a way to configure the interface/network that is used for migration or does this depend on >> the combination of hostname resolution and which hostname was used to create the cluster? >> (I have various hostnames configured per host, for each configured network one, so that I can >> explicitly choose which interface I use to connect to a host.) >> >> Regards, >> >> Uwe >> >> >> Interface configuration: >> >> eno1np0 --+-- untagged VLAN X -- Corosync ring 1/management network (192.168.1.0/24) >> >> eno2np1 N/C >> >> enp3s0 --+ >> +-- bond0 --+-- bond0.100 -- vmbr100 \ >> enp4s0 --+ +-- bond0.101 -- vmbr101 +-- VM traffic >> +-- bond0.102 -- vmbr102 / >> >> enp5s0 --+ >> +-- bond1 --+-- untagged VLAN Y -- Corosync ring 0/Ceph (172.16.1.0/24) >> enp6s0 --+ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pve-user mailing list >> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >> >