On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:37 +0930, Mark Smith wrote: > Ok, so it seems a bit of variation has been added in so that the > anycast "clients" are likely to be spread more across all the available > anycast servers. This is probably not a bad thing.
I'm happy to have it, or not have it. But the current discussion is about whether to reserve the subnet router anycast address and/or the subnet anycast addresses. It is not about whether to have on-link anycast at all. We can have anycast, however it may be implemented, without reserving special addresses for it. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
