Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
DOCS-2997: Document the l2Bridge network type - #2950
Merged
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for calico-docs-preview-next ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview succeeded!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the Calico Enterprise Network resource reference to document the new l2Bridge network type alongside the existing vrf type, including new sample YAML and detailed field-by-field reference tables for the L2 bridge configuration.
Changes:
- Expands the introduction to explain the two
Networktypes (l2Bridgeandvrf), including immutability of the chosen type. - Adds L2 bridge sample manifests and a comprehensive
L2BridgeSpecreference (VLANs, hostConfig, bridge requirements, trunk ports, and routes). - Scopes the existing Limitations/Requirements sections to
vrf, with pointers to the L2 bridge support/limitations page.
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
Comment on lines
+196
to
+199
| | Field | Description | Accepted Values | Schema | | ||
| | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------- | ----------------------------------------- | | ||
| | destination | CIDR prefix for this route. Use `0.0.0.0/0` for a default route. | A valid CIDR | string | | ||
| | action | What to do with traffic matching this route. Exactly one action must be set. | | [L2RouteAction](#l2routeaction) | |
Add the l2Bridge type to the Network resource reference. The vrf content is unchanged, and the limitations and requirements sections are now scoped to vrf with a pointer to the L2 support page. The Network resource now has two types, so the introduction and the spec table say that exactly one must be set and that the choice is fixed for the life of the resource. Fifteen new field tables cover the L2 type. Several carry semantics that a generated reference would drop: the first matching host configuration entry wins rather than being merged, overlapping VLAN entries are combined rather than rejected, and several fields are one-of unions. The section on an existing bridge documents the three properties Calico checks, what it deliberately does not require, the bridge naming hazard, and what happens when a requirement is not met. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ctauchenforce-pushed
the
DOCS-2997-8-network-reference
branch
from
August 21, 2026 11:08
484498b to
53a65e0CompareAdd a comment at the top of the page naming the user story it exists to serve. The page also holds the bridge configuration contract that the prepared-bridge guide points at, so the requirements are stated in one place and referenced rather than repeated. That is recorded as subsidiary. Note that the story applies to the L2 sections added for DOCS-2997. The VRF sections predate this work. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.
Suppressed comments (1)
calico-enterprise/reference/resources/network.mdx:194
- Minor grammar: add a comma after the
/32clause to avoid the sentence reading as a run-on.
On a `/31` or `/32` no addresses are reserved, because those prefixes have no network or broadcast address to withhold.
fasaxc
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2026
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds the l2Bridge type to the Network resource reference. Eighth in the DOCS-2997 sequence. The vrf content is unchanged.
The Network resource now has two types, so the introduction and the spec table state that exactly one must be set and that the choice is fixed for the life of the resource. The limitations and requirements sections are scoped to vrf, with a pointer to the L2 support page, because the two types have almost nothing in common on those axes.
Fifteen new field tables cover the L2 type. Several carry semantics that a generated reference would lose, so they are stated in prose:
The section on an existing bridge is the densest part. It documents the three properties Calico checks, what Calico deliberately does not require, the hazard of naming a bridge with the prefix Calico treats as its own, and what happens when a requirement is not met.
Two samples are added: one for a Calico-managed bridge, and one for a user-prepared bridge with different trunk interface names on different nodes. The second is modelled on a configuration from testing rather than invented.
This is the page with the highest density of things I could get wrong, and it would benefit from a field-by-field read. In particular, please check the field names and nesting against the CRD, the accepted ranges, and whether vlans on a trunk port really defaults to carrying every VLAN the network defines.
One note: Vale will flag two pre-existing lines in the vrf section that use "dataplane" rather than "data plane". They are untouched by this PR and I left them alone rather than mixing an unrelated fix into the diff.
Changed page: https://deploy-preview-2950--calico-docs-preview-next.netlify.app/calico-enterprise/next/reference/resources/network