From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: jch@irif.fr Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id ed219a7f for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7a991dcd for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:58:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 21:05:01 +0200 Message-ID: <8760ie200y.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FCdtke?= Subject: Re: [RFC] Multicast and IPv6 Link Local Addresses In-Reply-To: <87d1cm2547.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87d1cm2547.wl-jch@irif.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= , Dave =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=E4ht?= , WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> - IPv6 link-local addressing: For me it is a perfect example for "the >> right amount of magic". It would make (at least my) life so much >> easier. Filling the neighbor cache would require WireGuard to provide >> (simulated or real) solicited node multicast addresses routing, right? > Yes, IPv6 neighbour discovery is one of those protocols that rely on > link-local multicast. I just realised this contradicts my mail dated 7 April to Jason. ND is not strictly necessary here, since there are no link-layer addresses. -- Juliusz