Brian > > 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.
I would agree, but the goal of the RFC 3484 is to "predict the behavior of the systems" and we see that actual behaviour on routers with SRAA is implementations dependant, because the RFC 4291 allows a reply with an anycast address as source and the RFC 3484 forbids it. Thanks, François-Xavier Thanks, François-Xavier -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
