Xun wrote:
>> So, what diagnosis, are you considering, becomes possible
>> only by your proposal?
> The particular diagnostic that our
> proposal tries to provide is to tell which one of a set of
> anycast servers responses to a DNS query.
It's a reception by a hospital clerk rather than a diagnosis
by a doctor, I'm afraid.
> Unicast address of an
> anycast server is very useful for many diagnostics, however, as
> DNS queries is sent to the anycast address and the path is decided
> by routing system, knowing the set of unicast address may not
> sufficient to answer that question.
That is an issue better handled by IP layer.
>> Also, I'm afraid a fantastic idea of "anycast node" of
>> RFC4892 is a result of broken specification of IPv6 anycast
>> (yes, IPv6 is broken in several ways), which assumes there
>> should be more than one anycast servers sharing an anycast
>> address on a link. Anyway, we can't discuss anything
>> meaningful about "anycast node", because its definition
>> is too fuzzy.
>
> I am not sure if I correctly understand your statement. Did
> you mean multiple anycast servers sharing a same path is only
> for IPv6?
I'm not sure either, because of broken terminology of the RFC,
which is your problem.
Are you saying "anycast node" is, following a definition of
"node" of IPv6, something looks like a server for the rest
of the Internet?
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
