On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> read draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-01.txt for more on this > >> topic. > >Please elaborate. I don't think the draft discusses this at all. > > Randy is talking about changing definition of "anycast" in RFC2460 > to definition in draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-01.txt section > 2.2. is it clear enough?
No, he isn't. There seem to be some unstated assumptions here. What he is saying is 'if you try to connect anycast address PRFX::/64, the ICMP unreachable (or whatever) message comes back from PRFX::X/64 (unicast address on the node)'. This applies to RFC2460 anycast only, and depending on source address selection, possibly pseudo-anycast. > >With RFC2460 anycast, you can always assume there is another unicast > >address of at least same scope assigned on the node. As the node cannot > >use RFC2460 address as a source address, it will use unicast address. > >Problem solved(?). > > i don't quite parse it. See above. There should be no nodes which have only RFC2460 anycast address(es), as they must not use it as a source address. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
