> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:28 +0930, Mark Smith wrote: >> Perhaps we should wait until IPv6 traffic exceeds IPv4's before >> deciding. With the trivial amount of use that IPv6 currently has, it >> makes no sense to say history shows it hasn't been useful and should be >> deprecated.
rofl. these are the same folk that also say "you can not change X in IPv6 because IPv6 is already deployed for a decade." > On the other hand, if we can see now that they are unlikely to be > useful (and IMHO we *can* see that) then we are doing the world a > service by helping all those vendors NOT implement it :-) and getting unneeded crap out of a code-path which some day may need to perform. > There is no need for subnet anycast addresses, because any address can > be an anycast address. Only the node where an anycast address is > configured needs to know that it is an anycast address. That is, there > is no need to be able to recognise such an address from its format. Has > the use of IPv4 anycast been impeded by the inability to tell an anycast > address from an ordinary address? > > There is also no need for subnet router anycast addresses, because a > node wanting to contact a router can use the all-routers-on-link > multicast address. Note that the subnet router anycast address doesn't > even ensure that the "nearest" router is contacted, which would arguably > have been useful, because the current spec deliberately builds in a > small random delay in responding, to avoid network congestion. may i steal your text? randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
