Jaehoon Jeong wrote:
> How can we compromise on the term "anycast" in our draft?
Just keep it.
> How about the addition of "shared-unicast" below?
If you insist on "shared-unicast" issue, I suggest the
following text.
3.3 Well-known Anycast Addresses
First of all, the well-known anycast addresses approach is
anycast used in the real world, which is much different from
that discussed at IPv6 Working Group in the past [9].
It should be noted that "anycast" in this memo and in the
real world 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.
To avoid the confusion, IPv6 WG should coin a new terminology
for their own addressing scheme or, better, just remove the
concept, which is not yet have any useful purpose, entirely.
Masataka Ohta
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
