UI not showing content of `/etc/network/interfaces.d/*`

bjorns

New Member
Aug 6, 2025
2
0
1
i've been setting up my network on VE 8.4. and configured my bond by adding it to: /etc/network/interfaces.d/bond.cfg

Code:
auto eno1
iface eno1 inet manual
auto eno2
iface eno2 inet manual
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet manual
    bond-slaves eno1 eno2
    bond-mode 802.3ad
    bond-miimon 100
    bond-xmit-hash-policy layer3+4

when i check the node->System>Network tab in de UI it shows that i dont have a bond.
I restarted my network and confirmed with cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0 that the bond was up. also in the /etc/network/interfaces file i had no reference to the eno1 and eno2 because its in the bond.cfg.

if i put the exact same config in /etc/network/interfaces and remove it from the /etc/network/interfaces.d/bond.cfg it does show up in the UI.
i was expecting that both senarios would have given the same outcome since the /etc/network/interfaces loads the other folder source /etc/network/interfaces.d/*
 
Last edited:
Our interface parser currently only considers /etc/network/interfaces itself, so this is expected behavior. It enables having custom network configuration that does not get interfered with (but of course, also not displayed then) by our tooling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjorns
We are currently encountering this issue with our server provisioning process. Our servers are configured using configuration management tools, and we aim to maintain consistency in the files deployed across all servers. Specifically, we distribute /etc/network/interfaces.d/brXXX files uniformly to all servers.


We would like to propose a feature enhancement for the parser: the ability to include specific files from /etc/network/interfaces.d/, potentially limited to those containing a designated comment tag such as "#PROXMOX-NET". This addition would significantly streamline our deployment workflow, as each server currently requires a unique /etc/network/interfaces file, which is both cumbersome and challenging to manage due to its size and complexity.


Thank you for considering this suggestion.