On 06/28/2013 09:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 29/06/2013 00:41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Matjaž Straus Istenič wrote:
Workaround is rather simple: use different link-local addresses on
IPv6-enabled interfaces and you are safe. But, nevertheless, I think
using same link-local pairs on links should not get you into any
trouble, right?
Correct, the same way that configuring fe80::1 on one interface and
fe80::2 on a second interface, and on this second interface the other
end should be able to have fe80::1 as its address, and everything should
work fine. Everything else is buggy, as you already have concluded.
Dumb question: would the same product fail if you configured 10.1.1.1
Many routers wouldn't let you do that in IPv4. Cisco IOS doesn't, for
example:
core-spare(config)#int vl100
core-spare(config-if)#ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
core-spare(config-if)#no shut
core-spare(config)#int vl101
core-spare(config-if)#ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
% 10.1.1.0 overlaps with Vlan100
...and IOS then forbids me from "no shut"ing vl101:
core-spare(config-if)#int vl101
core-spare(config-if)#no shut
% 10.1.1.0 overlaps with Vlan100
Vlan101: incorrect IP address assignment
on two different IPv4 interfaces? (If yes, it tells you there is some
sloppy basic design.) (And yes, I realise that the two OSPFs might have
completely independent code bases.)
OSPFv3 is also different at the protocol level to OSPFv2.
