Hi Joe,
On Apr 4, 2005, at 22:12, Joe Abley wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005, at 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:
This is a timely topic, because IPv6 WG just less than week ago forwarded the revision of the addressing architecture to be published as Draft Standard. (IPv6 WG is Cc:ed.)
That draft, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4 -02.txt still has the problematic wording wrt anycast addresses.
Yes, I noticed that. I sent mail to the authors of that draft asking them for their thoughts on the anycast issue, but I haven't heard anything back, yet.
As a note, the current editor is only intermittently reachable due to personal travel.
Assuming there is consensus that v6 anycast for host-based services is a fait accompli, and that further prohibition is unnecessary, it would seem that adjusting the relevant paragraph in the revised (v4) v6 addressing spec would be the cleanest way of proceeding.
My personal opinion is that the restriction should be lifted.
However, although I think we had some kind of consensus to that effect in the grow meeting in Minneapolis, I haven't heard any opinion from those ipv6-wg folks who don't also participate in grow. Seems like some kind of hum from the ipv6 floor would be useful to hear (or, if no hum, active throwing of furniture).
I will pose that question to the group and report back.
Regards, Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
