[two replies in once before I truly fill up every one's mailboxes ;) ] On 2010-08-16 11:46, Randy Bush wrote: >>> I have no plans to ask Cisco and Juniper about this. I want /127 to >>> continue working, and couldn't care less about subnet anycast for my >>> core routers. >> >> I think you miss my point: they might finally comply with the specs one >> day (if you ask or not, others might) and you will have forgotten about >> this little subtle problem and upgrade your routers and voila your >> network is broken. > > then you will join us supporting the /127 document and it won't be a > problem, will it.
When it is changed that way, indeed it won't be a problem any more as that is then the standard and people can't be bitten by it anymore. The big 'problem' I have with it that it is yet-another-special case. Special cases should be kept to a minimum where possible. On 2010-08-16 11:48, Ole Troan wrote: [..] > it is intentional. > there is a command to enable support for subnet-router anycast if use > of that is desired. For your platform (which is then a resolved case), but maybe not others. > is there _any_ operational experience with the use of the subnet > router anycast address? I've never found a real use for it. > asking the question another way. is it still a good idea, or was it > ever? Currently I don't see the use. The only use seems to be an extra annoying slide when one is explaining all the 'good stuff about IPv6' ;) One would almost wonder about fully deprecating the subnet anycast address..... Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
