Hi Pekka and Ohta-san,
How can we compromise on the term "anycast" in our draft?
How about the addition of "shared-unicast" below?
3.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses
First of all, the well-known anycast addresses approach is much
different from that discussed at IPv6 Working Group in the past [9].
It should be noted that "anycast" in this memo *, which means shared-unicast,*
is simpler than that of RFC1546 [11] and RFC3513 [12] where it is assumed to be
prohibited to have multiple servers on a single link sharing an
anycast address.
If both you are okay with my suggestion, I'll go ahead :-)
Thanks.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> editorial
> ---------
>
> 3.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses
> [...]
>
> ==> I already commented on this, but I think it would be useful to use
> 'shared-unicast' -terminology instead, or at least refer to that to
> disambiguate with "IPv6 anycast". After all, that's a good
> terminology (coined in the IESG evaluation), based on
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt.
>
> I could live with 'anycast' here, but I'd think it would be confusing
> especially if you don't mention "shared unicast" at all..
>
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
