Re: [PATCH docs/gui-tests/manager/network/proxmox{-ve-rs,-perl-rs} v3 00/13] Add IS-IS protocol to fabrics

[Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>]

On 01.09.2026 11:59, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> On 01.09.2026 10:58, Stefan Hanreich wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 9/1/26 10:55 AM, Hannes Laimer wrote:
> > > On 2026-09-01 10:33, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > >> On 01.09.2026 09:09, Hannes Laimer wrote:
> > >>> On 2026-08-31 14:59, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > >>>> On 31.08.2026 14:27, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > >>>>> On 31.08.2026 10:48, Hannes Laimer wrote:
> > >>>>>> Aside from these very tiny nits/questions, looks very good to me:
> > >>>>>>  - could we have the same `network_type`-nob here that we introduced for
> > >>>>>>    OSPF?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, makes sense. ISIS supports network-type broadcast (unlike openfabric) and
> > >>>>> even multi-access (e.g. multiple devices behind a switch).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Oh, no wait I won't be adding this. ISIS only has broadcast and point-to-point
> > >>>> available, and the default is broadcast. We use broadcast when an interface ip
> > >>>> is set and point-to-point when no ip is set.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> yes, but we only need a specified ip for v4 broadcast, v6 does not. so
> > >>> unnumbered v6 broadcast is not possible currently
> > >>
> > >> Hmm that's true. v6 broadcast works in two scenarios: link-local addresses
> > >> (which IMO is not "unnumbered" -- but this is debatable :)), and because it uses
> > >> ndp instead of arp, which doesn't have the weird address-selection.
> > >>
> > >> I thought a while back about this -- we don't need to duplicate the ipv6
> > >> addresses to the interface. But then we should also remove the link-local
> > >> addresses to make it clean.
> > > 
> > > i don't think we can, the ll would be the next-hop..
> > 
> > My thoughts exactly, unless I'm missing something?
> 
> Works without a nexthop using the onlink flag. But I forgot this is not merged
> yet, so nevermind (https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/19429).

Oh, nevermind, this was already a long time ago -_-. You still need ll for ndp
to get the mac address. It would be possible with linux ppp interfaces, but they
are weird.

> > >>> the ip for the nic is taken from the node config, so leaving the nic ip
> > >>> fields empty doesn't necesarrily mean do p2p, p2p still needs a
> > >>> next-htop target and for v4 this has to be specified. we just take the
> > >>> ip from the node, which is fine. but leaving the ip field empty does not
> > >>> imply do `p2p`, just: use the node-ip for either(p2p or broadcast).
> > >>>
> > >>> for v6 we could actually never copy the node-ip to the nic(we do that
> > >>> now always), this would allow configuring unnumbered v6 broadcast or
> > >>> p2p, which are both possible with v6. 
> > >>>
> > >>> [snip]