Hi all,
Anyone know if MT does support anycast address? can anyone shed some light on this please, the manual doesn’t say much on this topic
RouterOS supports Subnet-Router anycast address as per RFC4291, although it cannot be disabled. I assume ND behaves correctly when it receives non-overriding node advertisements as per RFC4861.
There seems to be a way to make an anycast address via no-dad=yes, although I never tested whether it affects Node Advertisement setting as recommended per RFC4861.
Is there anything specific that you expect from a router? IIRC router treats it as any other unicast by default and any extra logic (such as redundancy, load balancing etc) is up to administrator to implement.
I just want to lab up a potential use case where I do have a container with reverse proxy that will piggy back the traffic going back to the real server for HA purposes
Perhaps all you need is to ensure that whenever the container is running it wins route selection for that anycast destination address.
If you haven’t read this already, RFC7094 has good overview of operating services with anycast addresses.
Yeah surely do certainly, what surprise me is it seems like no DAD (Duplicate address detection) option is not working even though you toggle it 
in cisco i try to lab this thing up in the most simple way possible that I could think of and it appears to work correctly afaic and not to pretend to know the intricacy of IPV6, anyway thanks for the pointer will dig more.
Now that you mentioned it, I remembered about a bug request I filed where support told that no-dad=yes is not implemented:
But, currently, conducting the test we have concluded, that in RouterOS this functionality is not working, DAD can not be turned off. The duplicate check happens regardless, this information is passed to our development team, fix will be conducted in future RoS updates.
That was in June.
Thanks for the insight at least I’m not alone but this is low priority given the circumstances of MT they want to stabilized ROS v7 in general which is a good thing
I asked the support whether no-dad affects the overriding flag and just received an answer that no it does not. The documentation was edited to reflect that no-dad=yes does not make address a proper anycast.
So it appears within RouterOS you cannot assign an anycast address. Thus Scenario 2 in RFC 7278 cannot be configured on RouterOS.
I’m not going to chase this on them any more, since they deny the existence of the NO DAD bug alone because they know that it will lead to a much bigger issue of which you confirm, thanks anyway for the update
Does anyone know or test if anycast is already fix in v7.19.1?