> >>>>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:59:54 +1000,
> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > IPv6 anycast addresses are a joke as they are currently
> > defined. Don't bother with them until there behaviour
> > gets redefined by the IETF.
>
> (I'm just asking,) what is the "joke" part of the current definition?
> The restriction that an anycast address must not be used as a packet's
> source address?
Yes, and I know why the restriction is in RFC 1884 and it
is a reasonable restriction.
A client application shouldn't have to care if a packet is
sent to a anycast address and the reply should appear to
come from the anycast address from the point of view of the
application.
Until anycast addresses meet the above they will be a joke.
With multicast and broadcast you know in advance that you will
get return a traffic from a different address.
Anycast addresses appear to the client application as unicast
addresses. They should behave like unicast addresses for
the client application.
Server applications may need additional smarts to cope with
anycast addresses. But really the IP stack should deal
with 99% of this.
Mark
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
