Ondrej,
I forgot, not everyone uses private addresses :-), It seems that using /31 quasi-reqular prefix (RFC 3021) is probably also OK.
Yes. But I can't use those here either :-)
What if you forcefully remove the IA_PEER flag for your ppp interfaces? Then an IP address is send instead of ifIndex in the router LSA. Could be an useful addition to bird.
IA_PEER is not a flag of iface, it is internal BIRD flag (of an address) signalizing that there is not a common prefix (it is 'unnumbered'). So it is not possible to forcibly remove that (outside of BIRD).
You perhaps mean IFF_POINTOPOINT system iface flag.
That is what I thought you meant.
Forcibly removing it from physically ptp ifaces (like ppp or slip) is not a good idea as in that case BIRD would think that these ifaces are physically NBMA and does not allow run OSPF in PTP mode on it (just NBMA or PTMP mode).
I don't actually need OSPF to be running on the interfaces in question in the sense of transmitting packets. Currently I'm doing two things: * redistributing the interface networks when these are numbered (e.g. a /28) * redistributing the static /32 routes when they are not. The quagga peer is on a different interface. Perhaps I read the original report wrong: I had read this as (also) causing a problem in external LSAs imported into bird on such links, then reaching Quagga.
It would be possible to run BIRD in PTMP mode on unnumbered iface over physically PTP link (PTMP and PTP mode is very similar) but it is non-standard (RFC implicitly supposes that PTMP is numbered) so it is probably not a good starting point for BIRD-Quagga compatibility (i don't have a clue whether and how PTMP mode is implemented in Quagga).
From days gone by playing with Cisco, OSPF and frame-relay ATM interworking, I dimly recall that this (Running on PTMP mode over a PTP link) does in fact work, and should work because a single point is a degnerate case of multipoint. I don't believe the multipoint standard suggests that there has to be more than one endpoint. I do not recall trying this unnumbered, and I agree the RFC probably implicitly prohibits it.
-- Alex Bligh