In message <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter writes: > On 2011-09-28 21:42, François-Xavier Le Bail wrote: > ... > > > > So, if the RFC 3484, Section 4 "Candidate Source Addresses" is involved > in > > the reply to datagrams sent to an anycast address, it might be useful to > > reassess the restrictions that excluded an anycast address from the > "candidate set", at least for the replies. > > You would need to start a thread proposing a specific change to > draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise if you want this to be done. > > I'm not convinced; as Ole said, anycast remains a special case > for certain applications, so it will be hard to define a safe > general rule. > > Brian
Just for reference, in the last week, there was a compliant in bind-users that we were rejecting replies to queries sent to the all routers IPv6 anycast address because the source address of the reply did not match the destination address of the query. The anycast address can be used as source address relatively safely, even for TCP, if you constrain the packets to be fragmented at network MTU and to also include a fragment header in case they are going through a IPv4/IPv6 translator. With anycast you don't want to trigger PMTU discovery. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
