On 25 August 2021 22:02:02 CEST, Stefan Sperling <s...@stsp.name> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:13:26PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
>> On 2021-08-25 18:02 +01, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
>> > Trying to announce a network on a wg(4) interface via ospf6d, just
>> > using passive to pick up the prefix, i.e.
>> >
>> > interface wg0 { passive }
>> >
>> > It's failing with "/etc/ospf6d.conf:10: unnumbered interface wg0".
>> >
>> > With -v I get 'interface with index 27 not found' (this is "normal"
>> > with ospf6d) and the routable address does show up e.g. "if_newaddr:
>> > ifindex 27, addr 2a03:xxxx:xx:xx::xxxx/64" before giving the
>> > unnumbered interface error. There is normally no link-local address
>> > for wg.
>> >
>> > 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?
>> >
>>
>> RFC 4291 2.1:
>> All interfaces are required to have at least one Link-Local unicast
>> address.
>
>If you're not using the interface to send or receive OSPF messages this
>should not matter. I doubt the RFC authors considered the possibility
>of an IPv6-capable interface that doesn't support link-local.
>
I'm always amazed when anything works at all with wireguard and IPv6.
Not my fleas, not my circus *shrug*
--
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse poor formatting.
