On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 17:16, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > Not necessarily. The <anycast,unicast> binding could be stored in the
> > binding cache as in MIPv6 and TCP could continue using the anycast
> > address.
>
> Depends what happens when the binding times out and
> needs to be refreshed/re-established.
> MIPv6 assumes that it can just redo the RR exchange and
> still end up sending to the same host. That isn't the case for
> anycast since the anycast address identifies more of a service than a host.
> Thus to make it more likely that the transport connection survive
> routing changes it makes sense to get the transport connection basically
> be redirected to use a unicast member of the anycast group.
I don't know that the binding needs to have a limited lifetime in this
case. It can be deleted when the TCP connection is closed (or via a
reference counting mechanism in case multiple connections can map to the
same binding).
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
