On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Randy Bush wrote: > >>>> read draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-01.txt for more on this > >>>> topic. > >>> Please elaborate. I don't think the draft discusses this at all. > >> Randy is talking about changing definition of "anycast" in RFC2460 > >> to definition in draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-01.txt section > >> 2.2. is it clear enough? > > No, he isn't. > > i think he is. but i could be wrong. after all, he has said it about > 42 times not. > > > What he is saying is 'if you try to connect anycast address PRFX::/64, the > > ICMP unreachable (or whatever) message comes back from PRFX::X/64 (unicast > > address on the node)'. > > i don't think he was saying that. but again, i could be wrong.
Ok, I misunderstood your statement. Above was my similar but different opinion why ICMP packets triggered by traffic to an anycast address should not be a problem. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
