i guess title of section 3 was vague - current proposals tries to mean
current proposals made for IPv6, like RFC2373 limitation for IPv6
anycast address assignment. therefore, 3.3 talks about restriction
imposed by RFC2373, which is applicable to IPv6 only.
i'll
RFC 3258 uses the term shared-unicast address for what you seem to be
calling pseudo-anycast. I wonder if it makes sense using this existing
term instead of creating a new one.
if shared-unicast address is more common, i'm happy to use that term.
I don't know if that term is widely
sorry that i missed the i-d deadline for this.
note that the document is in IESG queue for a lo---ng time.
RFC 3258 uses the term shared-unicast address for what you seem to be calling
pseudo-anycast. I wonder if it makes sense using this existing term instead
of creating a new
I've finally re-reviewed draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-01.txt.
I have some concerns about clarity as well as strong concerns about
the document seeming to change the standard for DNS clients verifying the
source address of the replies. Details below.
RFC 3258 uses the term shared
as mentioned in the meeting, we've submitted this revision to address
IESG comment. I don't feel the need for another WG last call, so
please send it forward to IESG. thanks.
itojun
IETF IPng Working
