On 2021/08/25 13:33, Daniel Jakots wrote: > 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
Thanks, but in itself that doesn't give a reason to have this restriction on a "passive" interface, in that case it's only redistributing the network on the interface, not sending OSPF packets on the interface itself.
