Re: same link-local address on multiple interface and OSPFv3
On 06/29/2013 03:18 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: IPv4 doesn't have link-local addresses or anything similar (unless you want to consider 192.169/16 similar in this context). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3927
Re: same link-local address on multiple interface and OSPFv3
Hi, On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:07:57AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Dumb question: would the same product fail if you configured 10.1.1.1 on two different IPv4 interfaces? (If yes, it tells you there is some sloppy basic design.) Uh, for IPv4, this is not exactly clearly defined what the outcome of two IPv4 interfaces having the same IP address is supposed to be - where will a packet for 10.1.1.2 be sent to, given that IPv4 has no concept of a scoped ID? For IPv6, fe80:: is fairly well defined... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: same link-local address on multiple interface and OSPFv3
On 29/06/2013 22:18, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: Hi Phil and list, [Using the same link-local address on multiple (VLAN) interfaces] Many routers wouldn't let you do that in IPv4. Cisco IOS doesn't, for example: IPv4 doesn't have link-local addresses or anything similar (unless you want to consider 192.169/16 similar in this context). Of course not, but I was trying to see how deep in the product design the issue might go. It sounds like dumb copying of the IPv4 logic (where as Gert says there is no implied scope and therefore a real ambiguity). Brian
