On 2021/08/25 22:23, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes this does work and I think I prefer it, thanks.
(I had problems either with "redistribute" or with my expectations of
what it would do before, but this seems alright..)
