At Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:07:52 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm afraid "has not been implemented" is too strong. In fact, we have > > "implemented" it in the KAME/BSD IPv6 stack in that we implemented > > special restrictions (at that time) on anycast addresses and had > > experimentally assigned subnet-router anycast addresses on PC-based > > IPv6 routers. In general, it's difficult to declare something hasn't > > been implemented because it eliminates any minor implementation > > activity, which is almost impossible to prove. > > I agree that the wording is a bit strong, and I'm ok with weakening > it, but I've yet to see an implementation that enables it by default > or even by an enable/disable configuration directive. > > AFAIK, on KAME/BSD it's "implemented" in such a fashion that the > operator must manually configure it with "ifconfig". I wouldn't call > that "implemented" myself. At least on my FreeBSD 7.2 router, subnet > router anycast address isn't configured automatically and I don't even > see system configuration parameters (e.g. in init scripts) which would > change this. I won't try to win the debate of the definition of implementation. It was not my point that the KAME/BSD may implement it. The point is that the original wording of the draft was unnecessarily strong. And since we both seem to agree on that point, I think we are done. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
