From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: passt.top; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: passt.top; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=h1rf0C6N; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by passt.top (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63B75A0778 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 04:24:22 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1768533862; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yBI+aNNQOv6wm1hHDlBXq2c3BOvIoGHSX24TYfiEz54=; b=h1rf0C6NlROPe48uaqYq8r1pD2AGf+QyP79R4HEJBxi4Q0R3LxynKw2JJtRZG4vQbijrtp yL4nqtBhz1WID8Mqrp9JBjPxhKettqXBmIvs6oIRwhLTeCcdsqsjpgO3VDhnRCHAIDKxkN WNumuPbgRpime1ROZGTLfdqFrPOvKE4= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-362-7bYbtwfkNqqNuSye6lB9ew-1; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:24:17 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 7bYbtwfkNqqNuSye6lB9ew-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 7bYbtwfkNqqNuSye6lB9ew_1768533856 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-47d3ba3a49cso12948665e9.2 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:24:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1768533856; x=1769138656; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:organization:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yBI+aNNQOv6wm1hHDlBXq2c3BOvIoGHSX24TYfiEz54=; b=EzrerZJxtOHXCRvv0umDQrM3im6/JyFb2ky5yDcdHtLF+ZHt5CLVB/V8lpXL3gFY/Y e2gY5nwEzZMLI9cZkj23rYqu/AfsAvSdsltgYxZ1Vvhw2cIacGgfW+F2MZ6T86vk2f/0 xOcEphKKRuNUQylJ6wKQjh30VeUhqnb6cVfohnywHOur0FBL9+JDQduteSoImNnCElfb nzYsOn8KfwL6+RJz4m6YXvh5Q0ObzM7o9Va56sBbftgAu6H+p6HcTPr+s0L4wvXHbqPA W1WeAHsh591OznnBFbgM9tsuIeibHZqwM0N/nUeCh/BJazVicvn5CCQgp9qUUwCBQiO5 hEnQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWFXtW5QGZVctyLb8OIZYZEc7af8EBWomDg/4BICkDtLu0geZgAJRKmd2iK/0g7Ch2EmerILuGwi6g=@passt.top X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxox+kRIEl8mm6ccgN76zHXDfQqBE2IGXS5lni30NXJBR7vB8fR PRmvlt62kwHFrLHrRfJs2DRcVKxKvMMHJC3Kjx2MTcxtPjhFr56APpWDEyFjHY3AAjGMWQaY0SI 8TK1oTdZL0Ivf2UVp0QZxuymGPxGjJZ5/kfGI2tE5Otl4QS7S0o2uUoZjeyR5ew== X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX5ia43dMHWoRsJFAXrnWcZMphBSGicpqC/an1phA7WXqk7C0iSIxK9DzOYRhmv Q3vi4upDOQHxsQ5xMjIymcYbNdsB/Wv6XYpBdv6HLo+/7ykxCbKt4yz2KLrjnooXm9++6Vl6qK9 hhqJ4Dps7RQ4Ylw1/JnwkhzySC7FcPUG01XSfF/O7MUuXoUwzoyiOlSHMd8nyEj9NzWJX0GHlhZ 6Iguw/JoqQ1WT5SNFAkOhQWMRs0h4XYnNLJsQjcyNL8N7e/evvhLyftXhTWbiQF9WZCSt2lBzuQ WMosPogabMzxRP6AsWPkYwk2Xyb7kSmIB/4zcGAt5qnoNP2yIKNCOpraiHJMnX0NaUnnmMcWDmp rqV04QzITnNqro0EutQPG X-Received: by 2002:a05:600d:6450:10b0:477:58af:a91d with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-480215e1ad9mr3078655e9.5.1768533856003; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:24:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600d:6450:10b0:477:58af:a91d with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-480215e1ad9mr3078595e9.5.1768533855635; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from maya.myfinge.rs (ifcgrfdd.trafficplex.cloud. [2a10:fc81:a806:d6a9::1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4801e8d77besm20290925e9.14.2026.01.15.19.24.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:24:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 04:24:13 +0100 From: Stefano Brivio To: David Gibson Subject: Re: Thoughts on interface modes / multiple guest addresses Message-ID: <20260116042413.7c954c4f@elisabeth> In-Reply-To: References: <20251217012936.5aefec93@elisabeth> <20251218002220.18311a7b@elisabeth> <20251218063249.095e7614@elisabeth> Organization: Red Hat X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: v6G9oiEYlV5r0uOb0IAXcasUUVXF3tSf70HfSHh6CZA_1768533856 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID-Hash: 6CLIAH347OAQDM545CRAFDPLDP42IYAD X-Message-ID-Hash: 6CLIAH347OAQDM545CRAFDPLDP42IYAD X-MailFrom: sbrivio@redhat.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Jon Maloy , passt-dev@passt.top X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.8 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion and patches for passt Archived-At: Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 15:26:34 +1100 David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 06:32:49AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:47:06 +1100 > > David Gibson wrote: > > > > > For multi-address support there are at least four things to consider: > > > > For the bits related https://bugs.passt.top/show_bug.cgi?id=141, I > > thought Jon was working on a proposal. > > > > > (a) What goes in our internal list of addresses to give the guest? > > > > > > a.1. Everything listed with -a? > > > > If anything is passed, yes, those, and just those (separately for IP > > version), because the user is clearly overriding addresses (as > > currently implemented and documented). > > So far, so good. But including both explicit addresses and host > addresses seems potentially useful to me (especially for an > intermittently online host). It's not the first step, but I think we > want to think about how we'd allow this. I'd really keep it for much later and I didn't, on purpose, add this to https://pad.passt.top/p/netlinkMonitor. But I guess we could eventually have some pointers / special values for -a, say, -a 192.0.2.1 -a eth0/* would add all the addresses that will ever be added to eth0, while keeping 192.0.2.1 ("preferred"?). For scrapers: if, instead, you pass -a *, that will obviously add the list of filenames in the current directory as IP addresses. Not many know this, but .. is indeed a valid IPv6 address, in this paragraph. > > > a.2. Everything on the host? > > > > No, because you can't assume you can configure all those addresses on > > a single interface. Adding multiple interfaces is something we could > > consider later. > > Hm, depends what you mean by "can". The only case I can see they > really can't be configured on the same interface is if they're > link-local. But AFAICT, there's nothing to really stop you putting > any combination of global-scope addresses on a single interface. It > will less resemble the host's configuration, but again, there are > degrees of transparency not a single standard. Hmm, right, I was actually thinking of the associated routes: it might be impossible to have meaningful routes / default gateways. We don't necessarily care though. In any case, I'd just pick addresses from the template interface for the moment being. It's the least surprising option, the closest to what we do now. > > > a.3. Everything on the host template interface? > > > > Everything on the host template interface if available (as currently > > documented). > > As a first step, sure. > > > > a.4. A link local address we pick? > > > > A link-local address if nothing else is available (as currently > > documented). This will need to be permanent for the requirement we > > already discussed months ago with Podman developers. > > Right, but if this is permanent it potentially conflicts with > link-local addresses from the host interface Ah, well, yes, but we should never copy those. If the same address appears on the host... mark things as broken and fallback to NAT? This is something we should take care of right away, I guess. But the problem is actually pre-existing because we already have "local mode". I'm not sure if there's a problem, actually, I guess we should check. -- Stefano