> But those updates seem to set flag 0x40, so that's not "without a router > ID" is it?
Yeah, it was meant to clear the router-id. >> The plan is to explicitly allow such retractions in RFC 6126-bis, but >> they are clearly not allowed by RFC 6126. > Hmm, the RFC says this (which I seem to have previously missed): > If the metric field is FFFF hexadecimal, this TLV specifies a > retraction. In that case, the current router-id and the Seqno are > not used. AE MAY then be 0, in which case this Update retracts all > of the routes previously advertised on this interface. > Doesn't that make them in spec? It was certainly my intent to allow them, but Markus disagreed. -- Juliusz
