[c-nsp] IPv6 subnets for point-to-point links

[Alexander Koch]

On Sun, 8 May 2005 19:52:03 +0200, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> > > The question is, why would you *want* anycast on point to point links?
> > > According to RFC 3513,
> > 
> > Sure, you don't really need it, but the problem is that it's 
> > automatically implemented for all the interfaces and all the prefix 
> > lengths; you don't need to configure it, and you can't turn it off.
> 
> That isn't necessarily the case. On our Juniper routers, running mostly
> 7.0R2.7, I get no replies when pinging the anycast address of our /126
> links. I'm very happy with this situation.

To bring it back on track: We are still using /127, and I
was wondering if / when Cisco will implement this Anycast
thingy so it will bite back. I understand a /127 will not
work then any longer? (The same question would have to be
asked about other vendor implementations)

With J and Chiaro /127 works... *cough* So for that the
question would be when is FreeBSD changing its behaviour?
I know Linux does not allow me to point anything to a bla::
address since 2.5 already, and on asking I got the Anycast
reply. Anyone has any clue wrt FreeBSD?

Alexander