Hello Erik,
Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Why couldn't we define the /127 prefixes analogous to that - declaring
> that such links don't have a subnet anycast address and no reserved ones
> either.
Of course you can do that. However, then there will be some applications
that try to access anycast addresses (perhaps on the same link) that will
instead bother some other computer that may even run the same application
as an anycast host might do.
> Working the same as IPv4 practice can't be a disadvatage.
I'm sure you meant that in the context of this very specific discussion,
not as a general design rule.
Otherwise we'll have to start building IPv6 NAT boxes right away.
Still no one has pointed out any downside on reserving the space by
restricting prefix lengths. Robert Elz's point was the best/only one so
far, which is that fewer rules are better. But the rest of your note,
which I didn't quote, amounts to some more rules. And I don't see
why applications should have to know rules about subnet prefix
lengths in order to work better:
If ((prefix_length > 120) &&
(destination_address == anycast_foo)) {
printf ("Weird error message");
exit(99999999999999);
}
Plus, why shouldn't a host on a point-to-point link be able to run some
nifty applications that anycast is supposed to enable? If you say that
there aren't any yet, then that's a strange reason given that IPv6 doesn't
exactly have killer apps yet.
Regards,
Charlie P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
