From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD29A1FF0AE for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2026 12:26:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF1EF21552; Tue, 01 Sep 2026 12:26:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 12:26:15 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH docs/gui-tests/manager/network/proxmox{-ve-rs,-perl-rs} v3 00/13] Add IS-IS protocol to fabrics Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Hanreich , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260828113255.176546-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20260504 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1788258373003 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.335 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: YYKOBXOEC4S5ORSULCYXELVB3KZPOFOP X-Message-ID-Hash: YYKOBXOEC4S5ORSULCYXELVB3KZPOFOP X-MailFrom: g.goller@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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]