Hi Rob,
On Apr 13, 2005, at 23:32, Rob Austein wrote:
Upon further analysis....I agree with Joe. I was trying to meet Bob halfway, but upon reflection have concluded that I was wrong to do so.
Anycast is complicated, and the complications are not specific to IPv6. It really would be doing the world a favor if the IPv6 WG were to get rid of the language in the IPv6 address architecture doc that places IPv6-specific restrictions on anycast, then let the GROW WG handle the general anycast problem.
If I read this correctly, you would like to see the two rules on anycast in the addressing architecture completely removed rather than relaxed.
I can see the benefit of having the anycast functionality defined in one common place.
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
