On 2021/08/25 19:58, Crystal Kolipe wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 06:02:11PM +0100, Stuart Henderson 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? > > Is there a specific use case for leaving the interface configured without > IPv6 link-local? > > We use IPv6 extensively, (and are aware of various issues with the OpenBSD > IPv6 implementation), but I'm not aware of any advantage or problem that is > resolved by deliberately removing or not configuring link-local. If we > support this particular case of wg on such an interface, and by extension > encourage the general practice, then users with little experience of IPv6 are > likely to start shooting themselves in the foot by disabling it on a whim. > > If there is a problem somewhere that is resolved by removing IPv6 link-local, > I'm curious to know what it is. >
It's not a question of "removing IPv6 link-local", with wg it is not there at all unless you go out your way and explicitly configure a link-local address.
