> Hi, > The fundamental difference is the capability of the remote devices. > Either it's just a 'node' or it's a 'router'. > On 01/09/2024 18:12, 4 wrote: >> [...] >> # ping6 ff02::1%igc0 > You are looking here for all IPv6 *nodes* within the link-local scope >> [...] >> # ping6 ff02::2%igc0 > You are looking here for all IPv6 *routers* within the link-local scope > You have the details in RFC4291 [1] (section 7) > 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291.html
it was sarcasm :\ the question itself- for what reason does pf handle these situations so differently, and in the case of routers behaves like an asshole? but i cannot say that this behavior is a bug, and not intentionally done. for a quarter of a century, i have already realized that with obsd it is impossible to say with certainty where is idiocy and where is genius. for example, for some time now, the export of dropped packages has been removed from pflow. it would seem that this is definitely idiotic, since dropped packages are very important for tariffs taking into account incoming traffic.. but no, this is genius, although i still(it's been twenty years already, right?) don't understand why
