Stefan Sperling(s...@stsp.name) on 2021.08.25 22:02:02 +0200:
> 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.
Thats because by definition it's not IPv6 capable :-P
In this case, it should be possible to distribute a route that points to the
wg peer using
redistribute _prefix_ depend on wg0
instead of using passive.
If that does not work i would like to know why.
