On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:29:36PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > 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. >
I think with a passive interface OSPFv3 could work without link-local address. Allowing that in ospf6d would need a little bit of code shuffling. The config parser checks the existence of a link-local address on an interface before it looks at the interface block where the passive option would be. Maybe there are more places that would need to be changed. Remi
