Re: IS-IS and IPv6 LLA next-hop - just Arista, or everyone?

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:15, Adam Thompson <athompson () 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