>>>>> "bh" == Brad Huntting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 6to4 gateways would advertise to the their IPv4 peers that they have > a route for "a.b.c.d". And for their IPv6 peers (the 6bone) they > can advertise a route for 2002::/16. > Does anyone see a problem with this? I dont suppose there's already > a block of IPv4 address space set aside for anycast? I think nobody has really been using IPv4 anycast on a global (inter-provider) scale. The IETF dnsop working group is conducting an experiment on global anycast, with the possible application of name servers for important zones such as the root, see draft-ietf-dnsop-ohta-shared-root-server-00.txt (http://www.switch.ch/lan/dns/references.html#aroot for a pointer). Each new anycast address means additional routing entries in the default-free zone. Personally I'm not sure whether the ability to have a standard IPv4 address for the 6to4/6bone gateways is enough to justify this (the current Web page is a good alternative). One might be tempted by the idea that making global IPv4 routing more difficult would be a good thing to promote the deployment of IPv6, but this could also backfire. Regards, -- Simon. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
