>> Actually that is an incorrect statement. The IPv6 addressing
>> architecture forbids the use of an anycast address as the source
>> address. So, the response back from the anycast member will have
>> one of its unicast addresses as the source address. So, it is
>> similar to your multicast request/unicast response model.
> Sorry, back up. I assumed that this proposal intended to change that
> restriction, since with that restriction in place the resolvers won't
> be able to match up the responses they get with the queries they sent
> and anycast DNS won't work at all.
as i have been saying for a year or two. this bit of stupidity makes
anycast useless for the majority of uses to which it is put today [0].
i presume it will be ignored, and hence die when this stuff tries to
go for draft. if not, a buch of v6 use will die [1].
randy
---
[0] - of course the wonderous new world of v6 will have giga-jillions
of more wonderful uses for this pseudo anycast.
[1] - why is the v6 community so hell-bent on shooting itself in the
foot? <http://cs.ru.ac.za/homes/cspt/hoare.htm>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
