> >> b) What's the security model by which the router decides > whether to > >> accept routing updates from the DNS server? > > > > The same model that is used between routers in the network. > > Right, so this approach adds a whole new set of boxes that > can mess up > your routing system. This does not strike me as a good thing.
=> Which boxes does it add? I really don't see any more boxes here. Note, I'm not advocating this particular approach (injecting routes from the DNS) but I don't agree with your claim above, and I think it can work. I think something like MLD extensions would be much cleaner. > > That's up to your implementation. The DNS is the only > server using > > this address, so you can tie them together. > > Sure. One can do the same kind of thing with the DHCP approach (use > SO_REUSEPORT or whatever and tie the DHCP mini server to the DNS > server). => I believe you :), in fact, since you read the draft (twice now ;) ) you would have seen that DHCP messages were also considered for the 'content' part of the discovery. > The point was just that exactly the same considerations apply to the > anycast proposal as apply to other proposals. => I think you're mixing the 'content' of the message used for discovery and the method used for transporting that message to the right server. Anycast does the latter. So I don't know why you're comparing anycast with DHCP. DHCP can also use anycast in theory, I never tried it. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
