Use this document to connect an official requirement or behavior to observable evidence: Scope OSPFv3 packets and LSAs correctly on IPv6 links. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.
\nThe official RFC 5340 — OSPF for IPv6 from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:
\nKeep the evidence boundary at these traced claims. They support a review of address plans, interfaces, routes, peers, protocol roles, timers, middleboxes, and intended failure domains; they do not support conclusions outside the source’s stated conditions.
\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named network-protocol decision; it does not select vendor settings, topology, capacity, or an acceptable failure mode. A correct source interpretation can still be inapplicable to a particular design. Confirm DNS, Active Directory authentication, PKI, time, routing policy, transport reachability, and monitoring, ownership, and change authority instead of treating documented behavior as a deployment guarantee.
\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Anchor the review in the cited section and keep observation separate from interpretation. Record the source location, examined part of address plans, interfaces, routes, peers, protocol roles, timers, middleboxes, and intended failure domains, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.
\nTranslate the conclusion into change control only after documenting dependencies, impact, test method, expected signals, failure signals, and restoration steps. Include DNS, Active Directory authentication, PKI, time, routing policy, transport reachability, and monitoring, while excluding secrets and sensitive personal or topology data from ordinary tickets.
\nKeep the source locations Section 2.5 (Use of Link-Local Addresses); Section 2.5 (Use of Link-Local Addresses), LSA restrictions; Section 2.3 (Addition of Flooding Scope) adjacent to the sanitized artifacts used for comparison. Prefer configuration snapshots, route or neighbor state, packet captures, counters, topology records, and controlled failover results, with enough identity and timing data for an independent recheck.
\nRecord the decision even when no change is made, including uncertainty and the next trigger. Use safe testing conditions for disruptive work, preserve rollback proof, and revisit the conclusion after relevant platform, dependency, vendor, or ownership changes.
\n