Seems logical to me as well. If multicast is a specialized and complicated topic worthy of a separate RFC, I can easily accept that anycast should be given equal rights.
Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Rob, > > >Anycast is complicated, and the complications are not specific to > >IPv6. It really would be doing the world a favor if the IPv6 WG were > >to get rid of the language in the IPv6 address architecture doc that > >places IPv6-specific restrictions on anycast, then let the GROW WG > >handle the general anycast problem. > > OK, I think this makes sense. > > The proposal is then to remove the following text from the > end of Section > 2.6 the document: > > There is little experience with widespread, arbitrary use > of Internet > anycast addresses, and some known complications and hazards when > using them in their full generality [ANYCST]. Until more > experience > has been gained and solutions are specified, the following > restrictions are imposed on IPv6 anycast addresses: > > o An anycast address must not be used as the source > address of an > IPv6 packet. > > o An anycast address must not be assigned to an IPv6 host, that > is, it may be assigned to an IPv6 router only. > > This would mean we would not try to describe the general issues with > anycast usage in the document. I agree this makes sense > because the issues > are not specific to IPv6, there is now a body of experience > with anycast > usage, and the GROW working group is working in this area. > > Is everyone else OK with this proposed change? > > Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
