RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: use of anycast

"Bound, Jim" <> Mon, 13 May 2002 02:36 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12429 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA23554 for; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:36:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA23447; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:35:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA23424 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12357 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F412708; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Sun, 12 May 2002 22:35:22 -0400
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: use of anycast
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:35:21 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: use of anycast
Thread-Index: AcH6Hlb2S3qn8XSlTOuM/HeV6p8tGQAB56Ww
From: "Bound, Jim" <>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <>, Ralph Droms <>
Cc: Thomas Narten <>, Ole Troan <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2002 02:35:22.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[D44A60B0:01C1FA26]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by id WAA23425
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


I don't think the link-scoped unicast address is a good idea. What would the prefix for this be? If it is the standard link-local prefix, what about all the hosts today that don't have code to check for this value.

The client dhcpv6 code only needs know the address.  It does not affect IPv6 networking implementations at all.  And even if it was anycast thats handled by mgmt interface for the address set.

I think we're best left with letting this issue be resolved by the first link that needs it (as Thomas originally suggested).

I agree with Thomas if anycast is used just use the first listner.  But we have an issue maybe and do with anycast right now.  What Ralph proposes works with well-known-unicast, anycast, or well-known-multicast as I suggested.  And it don't break anything.

So, perhaps we should simply say: 
"If the link supports multicast, the multicast address MUST be used. Otherwise, the link over IPv6 specification needs to specify what the DHCP Client must use."

I don't agree Ralphs suggestion is more clear, easy to implement, and fits the IPv6 architecture well.


dhcwg mailing list