Subject: Comments on ANYCAST analysis.

From: Alain RITOUX <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:41:00 -0600

Hi,

Before all, thanks for clarifying the anycast subject !

For TCP connections, or UDP with suspicious clients, it seems to me the
pb is quiet the same as for mobile node acces, hence why not use the
same solution ?
The anycast server (who knows it owns an anycats @) can play the role of
a mobile, using its anycats @ as Home-@, and one of its current @ as
Co@. By using the Home Address option the UDP client won't know the
difference, and if necessary (for TCP), it can also send Binding Update
options, to be sure to be the one and onlmy server speaking with this
client.
Then the client would not have to know wether the @ its using is anycast
or not.

Does it make sense  or did I miss something ?

Best regards.
Alain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 19:42:54 +0900

>difference, and if necessary (for TCP),

	the document (01 revision) has a comment about the use of home
	address option for overriding source address.  it was suggested
	(by Steve Deering and other folks) that, home address option should
	have the same restriction as the IPv6 source address field,
	so use of multicast/anycast is discouraged.
	the problem if we use multicast/anycast as the source is, we cannot
	identify single node as the source.

	we need a consensus on this, and also we need explcit notice on spec.

>it can also send Binding Update

	it is not mandatory for an IPv6 nodes to have binding cache, so
	binding update may not work.
	also, how can you establish IPsec keys while using anycast address?

itojun