On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:15, Adam Thompson <athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> wrote:
Hey Adam, > I don't see any rationale in RFC 5308 for why the HELLO packet may only > contain the LLA - does anyone know/remember why? (I'm hoping that > understanding the rationale will make this an easier pill to swallow.) > Obviously this behaviour/requirement is net-new to the IPv6 TLVs, as there's > no LLA-cognate in IPv4 (APIPA doesn't count). There is in OSI, I think, but > I'm still too sane to read those docs. IPv4 link local is 169.254/16, you may have seen them in Windows. > It makes sense that you would not want LLAs in LSPs, only GUAs, but does that > imply that you must use either ULAs or GUAs in order to establish IPv6 routes > in IS-IS, in an IPv6 environment? That makes about as much sense to me as > forcing LLAs for next-hops. The list may benefit from the context you have, it is not obvious to me why you'd want anything but LLA. -- ++ytti
