Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net> wrote in <4df9accc.5070...@bway.net>:
sp> > LLA is a MUST for every IPv6-speaking interface, not for automatic
sp> > router discovery only. This is because ICMPv6 heavily depends on it.
sp> > Without LLA some unexpected and/or inconsistent behaviors can happen,
sp> > especially on a router as you experienced.
sp>
sp> I'm puzzled by why hosts with static IPv6 IPs could communicate with
sp> each other. I noticed in some of my netstat output that even though the
sp> ff02 multicast network was in the table, it was only bound to the
sp> loopback. However I still logged multicast to/from the box. One of the
sp> RFCs also noted that multicast is limited in scope to the link-local
sp> address, so in theory, not even the host to host ND should have worked.
sp> I guess that's what threw me.
This is because an L3 address to an L2 address resolution in NDP
works in the host-to-host case by chance; addresses in the NDP
messages do not have to have a link-local scope and FreeBSD's
implementation uses a GUA if it is configured. The host-to-router
case doesn't work properly because a router with no LLA never accepts
multicast listener discovery messages.
You can observe tcpdump output of the host-to-host case and the
host-to-router case. The primary difference will be that the
unspecified address ("::") is used in MLD report messages in the
latter.
-- Hiroki
pgpiAd8Uzftnq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
