On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:28 +0930, Mark Smith wrote: > Perhaps we should wait until IPv6 traffic exceeds IPv4's before > deciding. With the trivial amount of use that IPv6 currently has, it > makes no sense to say history shows it hasn't been useful and should be > deprecated.
On the other hand, if we can see now that they are unlikely to be useful (and IMHO we *can* see that) then we are doing the world a service by helping all those vendors NOT implement it :-) There is no need for subnet anycast addresses, because any address can be an anycast address. Only the node where an anycast address is configured needs to know that it is an anycast address. That is, there is no need to be able to recognise such an address from its format. Has the use of IPv4 anycast been impeded by the inability to tell an anycast address from an ordinary address? There is also no need for subnet router anycast addresses, because a node wanting to contact a router can use the all-routers-on-link multicast address. Note that the subnet router anycast address doesn't even ensure that the "nearest" router is contacted, which would arguably have been useful, because the current spec deliberately builds in a small random delay in responding, to avoid network congestion. If I have missed some really good use for either set of anycast addresses, please let me know! Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
