Pekka Savola;
> The argument I've heard a lot is one of architectural purity, as the
> address architecture states (for example):
The proper interpretation of the address architecture RFC
is that IPv6 WG does not know anything about address (not only
anycast one) architecture.
The RFC says:
> An IPv6 unicast address refers to a single interface.
> When a unicast address is assigned to more than one interface,
without defining "assign".
The confusion, seemingly, is a result of an attempot to purposelessly
distinguish a subnet and a link.
Purposeful requirements are that a subnet, which is identical to
a link, may have multiple address prefixes and that a link may
be divided into virtual links such as VLAN, which is purely
an L2 issue.
> 2.6 Anycast Addresses
> An IPv6 anycast address is an address that is assigned to more than
> one interface (typically belonging to different nodes),
> are syntactically indistinguishable from unicast addresses. When a
> unicast address is assigned to more than one interface, thus turning
> it into an anycast address,
If a host (or a router or a node or whatever) have a unicast address
assigned to an interface, the host must receive a packet to the address,
even if the packet is received on another interface. In addition,
if a host have a unicast address assigned to an interface, the host
may send a packet from the address, even if the packet is sent from
another interface.
That is, all the unicast addresses of a multi-interface host are
assigned to more than one interface and are anycast ones.
> Needless to say I disagree with this model... :-)
Yup.
Masataka Ohta
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
