No disagreement here. However, we can't argue that using anycast for stateless 6rd BR does provide redundancy if an ISP designs the network properly. On the other hand, stateful dslite can't use anycast.
On 7/3/11 9:53 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >Yes. 6rd is stateless, anycast address can be used for BR loadbalancing. >But as stated in draft-zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing, using anycast >to do the loadbalancing for the stateless transition technology has the >following drawbacks. Anyway, anycast address of BR can still be used by >using a FQDN of the B4 in the DHCPv4 option. The same address(i.e. the >anycast address) is returned when the DNS server receives the DNS >resolution requests from CEs. FQDN solotion is more flexible. > >The efficiency of this mode largely depends on the underlying >topology (e.g., location of NAT64 devices) and routing engineering >policies. Moreover, a stateless device may be overloaded if >the routing is not appropriately tuned and/or if the stateless devices >are not appropriately dimensioned. > >Best Regards, >Zhenqiang Li >2011-07-04 > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Washam Fan >Sent: 2011-07-03 12:02:07 >To: [email protected] >CC: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Re: [Softwires] Why not use AFTR IPv6 address for the new >DHCPv6 option? > >Hi Zhenqiang, > >6rd is stateless, so anycast address might be used for BR >loadbalancing. I guess, that might be the reason why IP literal is >prefered over fqdn for 6rd case. > >THanks, >washam _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
