Subject: Re: grow: ipv6 anycast

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:35:05 +0300 (EEST)

Joe,

This is a timely topic, because IPv6 WG just less than week ago 
forwarded the revision of the addressing architecture to be published 
as Draft Standard. (IPv6 WG is Cc:ed.)

That draft, 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-02.txt 
still has the problematic wording wrt anycast addresses.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
> Following comments at the meeting in Minneapolis regarding the conflict 
> between draft-ietf-grow-anycast and the v6 addressing spec (which imposes a 
> prohibition on v6 anycast) I wrote up the following:
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jabley-v6-anycast-clarify-00.txt
>
> This document might be seen as a companion to a revised 
> draft-ietf-grow-anycast, removing the v6 anycast prohibition such that the 
> anycast document is no longer at odds with the current v6 spec.
>
> Comments on this approach (and the draft) would be most welcome.
>
>
> Joe
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
> web archive:        http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
>

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:12:02 -0400

On 4 Apr 2005, at 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4 
> -02.txt still has the problematic wording wrt anycast addresses.

Yes, I noticed that. I sent mail to the authors of that draft asking  
them for their thoughts on the anycast issue, but I haven't heard  
anything back, yet.

Assuming there is consensus that v6 anycast for host-based services is  
a fait accompli, and that further prohibition is unnecessary, it would  
seem that adjusting the relevant paragraph in the revised (v4) v6  
addressing spec would be the cleanest way of proceeding.

However, although I think we had some kind of consensus to that effect  
in the grow meeting in Minneapolis, I haven't heard any opinion from  
those ipv6-wg folks who don't also participate in grow. Seems like some  
kind of hum from the ipv6 floor would be useful to hear (or, if no hum,  
active throwing of furniture).

Joe

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:59:45 -0400

Hi Joe,

> them for their thoughts on the anycast issue, but I haven't heard  

As a note, the current editor is only intermittently reachable due to  
personal travel.

> addressing spec would be the cleanest way of proceeding.

My personal opinion is that the restriction should be lifted.

> those ipv6-wg folks who don't also participate in grow. Seems like  
> some kind of hum from the ipv6 floor would be useful to hear (or, if  
> no hum, active throwing of furniture).
>

I will pose that question to the group and report back.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:30:08 -0700

> My personal opinion is that the restriction should be lifted.

	Likewise.

> I will pose that question to the group and report back.

	Thanks Brian.

	Dave