Hi, On Linux, I would suggest using a dummy interface for anything other than real loopback addresses (::1 and 127.0.0.1) and physical connections. The dummy interfaces as they have both link-local IPv6 and "real like" MAC address, so it is acting more like a physical device. This way, you would not need direct protocol either.
Best Regards, Martin Hunek Dne pondělí 12. prosince 2022 9:28:31 CET, Bernhard Ehlers via Bird-users napsal(a): > On 11.12.22 21:50 Bernd Naumann via Bird-users wrote: > > On 11.12.22 18:50, Ondrej Zajicek via Bird-users wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 06:30:46PM +0100, Bernhard Ehlers via > >> Bird-users wrote: > >>> I want to use OSPF with BIRD v2.0.10 on Linux. > >>> > >>> That works well, except that the IPv6 network of the lo interface isn't > >>> announced on OSPFv3. The IPv6 networks of the ethernet interfaces are > >>> announced as well as the IPv4 networks of all interfaces (ethernet > >>> and lo). > >>> The only missing is the IPv6 network of lo. > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> Due to some implementation details, OSPFv3 ignores interfaces that do not > >> have link-local addresses (even if they are just stub). Just use: > >> > >> ip address add fe80::1/128 dev lo > >> > > > > May I ask why not using the direct protocol to get the loopback addresses? > > I tried that as well and it worked. > > But I was concerned by this part of the documentation of the direct > protocol: > > > The question is whether it is a good idea to have such device routes > > in BIRD routing table. OS kernel usually handles device routes for > > directly connected networks by itself so we don't need (and don't > > want) to export these routes to the kernel protocol. OSPF protocol > > creates device routes for its interfaces itself and BGP protocol is > > usually used for exporting aggregate routes. > > So for OSPF the direct protocol should not be necessary and indeed it > worked without it for the ethernet interfaces (both for IPv4 and IPv6) > and for the lo interface on IPv4. Therefore my question. > > I think it is just personal choice, if one prefers adding the link-local > address or using the direct protocol. > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
