> > 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).
What about the case when you have UDP communication which needs to reach the same server? (or at least be notified when the anycast server changes). In that case you can't rely on the fact that the kernel has a single notion of active communication. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
