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

[Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>]

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?

>>
>>> 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. 
>>>
>>> does isisd support v4-via-v6 routes? if it does we could just do v6
>>> unnumbered in case no nic ip is specified and skip configuring the nic
>>> ourself..
>>
>> Nope.
> 
> :/

Only BGP (and Babel) currently do afaik ;_;


>>> either way, I still think the nob makes sense here, cause the the
>>> existance of a specified ip on the nic doesn't really point either way
>>> (bc or p2p), both need one, and for v6 can work without one
>>
>> Hmm yes you're right. We could add a knob like with ospf, where we have "auto"
>> (the current heuristic to select network-type) and then "point-to-point" and
>> "broadcast".
> 
> sounds good, im just not sure if 'auto' could be interpreted as 'find
> out if there is multiple in this L2 domain'.. since this would be new,
> maybe just the two explicit choices might be better, but fine either way

I feel explicitly setting the mode is better and easier to explain to users as
well...