I agree.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James Kempf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IPv6 WG" <ipv6@ietf.org>; "Joe Abley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: Anycast support in draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-02.txt
>
> > OK, so then lets go back to the question posed in the thread. The
> > current spec says that one should never use an anycast address as a
> > source address under any circumstances. That clearly flies in the face
> > of present practice, isn't responsiv to the set of concerns you raised
> > about anycast in general, and can be mitigated if anycast is use for
> > rendesvous. The suggestion was made that under a defined set of
> > circumstances (single message each way exchange, rendezvous, perhaps
> > some others) and with a defined set of procedures it would be OK to use
> > it as a source address. Those procedures need to spell out the whys and
> > wherefores.
> >
> > Would you be willing to see the 100% ban removed from the draft
> > standard and substitute text to the effect of that above included, with
> > follow-up work in grow-or-wherever to spell out those procedures?
>
> Definitely yes.
>
> > On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Apr 6, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Getting back to unicast initiated sessions I would still
> > >>> like to see some mechanism (as low in the stack as possible)
> > >>> which would allow long running session to survive routing
> > >>> changes.
> > >>
> > >> You're speaking in this thread. Did you take a look at the proposal
> > >> that Eric Nordmark, I, and the grow folks have discussed about a
> > >> care-of-address that would give a long term fixed address to the
> > >> server
> > >> in question? Answering that question is where we started out.
> > >
> > > care-of-address would be overkill for somethings and
> > > quite a reasonable solution for others. If it could be
> > > made selectable on a per/socket basis (I havn't looked
> > > at how implemetation do this at present) I suspect this
> > > will meet most of what would be required.
> > >
> > > In other words we would not want to do this for DNS/UDP but
> > > for DNS/TCP it would be acceptable even though it would only
> > > be really required for long running AXFR's (multi-megabyte).
> > >
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > >> ipv6@ietf.org
> > >> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
