starred/ProxmoxVE
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE.git synced 2026-02-05 00:29:55 +03:00
Code Issues 11 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

LXC IP Tag script error prevents tagging of IPs in 172.16.0.0/12 #1195

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-04 23:33:31 +03:00 by OVERLORD · 8 comments
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:33:31 +03:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Duratori on GitHub (Jun 30, 2025).

✅ Have you read and understood the above guidelines?

yes

📜 What is the name of the script you are using?

add-iptag.sh

📂 What was the exact command used to execute the script?

bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/main/tools/pve/add-iptag.sh)"

⚙️ What settings are you using?

  • Default Settings
  • Advanced Settings

🖥️ Which Linux distribution are you using?

Debian 12

📝 Provide a clear and concise description of the issue.

LXCs and VMs with IPs in 172.16.0.0/12 are NOT getting tagged, but 192.168.0.0/16 IPs are getting tagged.

The problem is in the ip_in_cidr function in the iptag script. Here's what is wrong:

  1. Root Cause: The function is using ipcalc -c to check if an IP is in a CIDR range (which works correctly), but then it is doing its own manual validation that only handled specific prefix lengths: /8, /16, /24, and /32.
  2. Specific Issue: My configuration includes 172.16.0.0/12 in the CIDR_LIST, but the manual check didn't handle /12 prefixes, so it would fall through to the default case and return false, even though ipcalc had correctly determined the IP was in the range.
  3. Why 192.168.5.x worked: The 192.168.5.x addresses matched against 192.168.0.0/16, and /16 was one of the handled prefix lengths in the manual check.
  4. The Fix: I simplified the ip_in_cidr function to only use ipcalc -c and removed the problematic manual validation. The ipcalc command handles all CIDR ranges correctly, including /12. However, the ipcalc command is returning exit code 0 even when the IP doesn't match. This seems to be because it's printing errors but still returning success. This explains why your original script had the redundant manual check - it was trying to work around this ipcalc quirk.
  5. It seems the best solution is to add handling of the /12 prefix to your script.

🔄 Steps to reproduce the issue.

Installed IP Tag and a brind new, clean install of Proxmox and let it run. Anything with a 172.16.x.x IP did not get tagged.

❌ Paste the full error output (if available).

None captured by me.

🖼️ Additional context (optional).

No response

Originally created by @Duratori on GitHub (Jun 30, 2025). ### ✅ Have you read and understood the above guidelines? yes ### 📜 What is the name of the script you are using? add-iptag.sh ### 📂 What was the exact command used to execute the script? bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/main/tools/pve/add-iptag.sh)" ### ⚙️ What settings are you using? - [x] Default Settings - [ ] Advanced Settings ### 🖥️ Which Linux distribution are you using? Debian 12 ### 📝 Provide a clear and concise description of the issue. LXCs and VMs with IPs in 172.16.0.0/12 are NOT getting tagged, but 192.168.0.0/16 IPs are getting tagged. The problem is in the ip_in_cidr function in the iptag script. Here's what is wrong: 1. Root Cause: The function is using ipcalc -c to check if an IP is in a CIDR range (which works correctly), but then it is doing its own manual validation that only handled specific prefix lengths: /8, /16, /24, and /32. 2. Specific Issue: My configuration includes 172.16.0.0/12 in the CIDR_LIST, but the manual check didn't handle /12 prefixes, so it would fall through to the default case and return false, even though ipcalc had correctly determined the IP was in the range. 3. Why 192.168.5.x worked: The 192.168.5.x addresses matched against 192.168.0.0/16, and /16 was one of the handled prefix lengths in the manual check. 4. The Fix: I simplified the ip_in_cidr function to only use ipcalc -c and removed the problematic manual validation. The ipcalc command handles all CIDR ranges correctly, including /12. However, the ipcalc command is returning exit code 0 even when the IP doesn't match. This seems to be because it's printing errors but still returning success. This explains why your original script had the redundant manual check - it was trying to work around this ipcalc quirk. 5. It seems the best solution is to add handling of the /12 prefix to your script. ### 🔄 Steps to reproduce the issue. Installed IP Tag and a brind new, clean install of Proxmox and let it run. Anything with a 172.16.x.x IP did not get tagged. ### ❌ Paste the full error output (if available). None captured by me. ### 🖼️ Additional context (optional). _No response_
OVERLORD added the bug label 2026-02-04 23:33:31 +03:00
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:33:38 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jun 30, 2025):

@DesertGamer

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jun 30, 2025): @DesertGamer
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:33:43 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DesertGamer commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2025):

It is interesting... I will try to do it today, and I will write about the results.

@DesertGamer commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2025): It is interesting... I will try to do it today, and I will write about the results.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:33:46 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DesertGamer commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2025):

There really was such a mistake, I fixed it in the new version, and also seriously worked out the rest of the possible methods, covered it all with tests, and I got a 99% result, thank you for your message.

@DesertGamer commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2025): There really was such a mistake, I fixed it in the new version, and also seriously worked out the rest of the possible methods, covered it all with tests, and I got a 99% result, thank you for your message.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:33:50 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DesertGamer commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025):

The update has been downloaded, please use the command:

bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/main/tools/pve/add-iptag.sh)"

You can save your old config using an additional option when updating, but I strongly recommend overwriting it.

@DesertGamer commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025): The update has been downloaded, please use the command: ``` bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/main/tools/pve/add-iptag.sh)" ``` You can save your old config using an additional option when updating, but I strongly recommend overwriting it.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:33:58 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025):

Image
@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025): <img width="553" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5d7f5290-468e-41b4-8f66-d443cc8becf4" />
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:34:00 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kendikaku commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025):

Hello,
after updating, the processing power consumption is very high, reaching 100% and consequently the temperature is also very high. After uninstalling iptag, both returned to normal.

Image

@kendikaku commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025): Hello, after updating, the processing power consumption is very high, reaching 100% and consequently the temperature is also very high. After uninstalling iptag, both returned to normal. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/703b6c88-94bc-4585-af26-566e83f791a3)
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:34:03 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025):

new issue

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025): new issue
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 23:34:09 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kendikaku commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025):

new issue

https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/issues/5701#issue-3202640205

@kendikaku commented on GitHub (Jul 4, 2025): > new issue https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/issues/5701#issue-3202640205
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Implemented in VED waiting push to Main
breaking change
bug
bug
bugfix
deferred
delete script
dependencies
enhancement
external
feature
github
help wanted
in project pipeline
invalid
investigation
json
maintenance
needs triage
new script
new script
nice to have
not a script issue
not planned
organization
question
refactor
rename script
security
update script
website
wontdo
🛑 Failure to comply with the guidelines
No Label bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
OVERLORD
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/ProxmoxVE#1195
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?