Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> wrote on 2012/08/30 15:42:50: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:33:09PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > Therefore, i think about putting local IP address for ptp links with ptp > > > addresses (i.e. merging the patch i sent before). Although it could be > > > argued that it is contrary to RFC 2328 12.4.1 [*], the ifindex value > > > is useless and using local IP addres would fix compatibility with Quagga > > > and Mikrotik (which seems to have the same problem). > > > > > > Any comments? > > > > That sounds like a good idea. In a way Quagga already does this as it > > doesn't > > support unnumbered yet but allows /32 prefixes. > > > > However, it could possibly break other routers unnumbered impl. I recall > > from when I devised the clever way to find the interface that (at least > > for Quagga), any other method would break when using unnumbered on just > > one side of the ppp link. I cannot remember the details now. Think > > about it and let me know if you come to the same conclusion. > > I don't think it could break compatibility with other routers - ifindex > is not propagated in any other place in OSPFv2, so even if other routers > would expect there ifindex, they cannot compare that value to anything > so they couldn't know that given IP address is not an ifindex. Putting > random value instead of ifindex would probably work too.
Ahh, now I recall. It was the other way around so no problem. Jocke
