On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 18:02:11 +0100, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> If I manually configure a link-local the interface is successfully > added. > > Anyone have an idea what the behaviour should be here? For passive > would it make sense to accept an interface without link-local? I discussed about that with remi@ a few months ago when I considered using ospf6d, as I had the same cryptic error than you give. I was told: > ospf6d can not work without a link-local address on the interface. > RFC 5340 mandates the use of link-local addresses in section 2.5. And here's a link to the mentioned section: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5340#section-2.5 Cheers, Daniel
