On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:23 +0930, Mark Smith wrote: > The reserving of addresses is so that the are autoconfigured and > therefore well known and "well available" ones. It's no different to the > idea of having reserved well known ports, multicast groups or unicast > addresses.
That's fine - but we should not reserve addresses unless there is a point to doing so. I can see no reason why there should be a group of addresses designated "anycast" at the top of the subnet (the subnet anycast addresses). And so far, no-one has provided a use case that shows why they need to be reserved. > Yes, there is (and has to be) a flag specified when the address is > assigned to nominate it as an anycast address. I'm glad there is, because that means we do not need to reserve those addresses. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
