Re: IPv6 Formal Anycast Addresses and Functional Anycast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6man-form-func-anycast-addresses-01.txt)

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, 01:23 Nick Hilliard, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mark Smith wrote on 03/11/2019 11:46:
> > I think there are advantages to having a formal IPv6 anycast address
> > class and space. For example, similar to multicast addresses, it could
> > be very useful to be able to look at an address and immediately know
> > it is an anycast address.
>
> Mark,
>
> multicast addresses have different protocol characteristics to unicast /
> anycast,

so it's not really valid to draw a comparison between the two.


> Regarding your draft, an addressing schema is a supporting part of a
> protocol requirement, and if you create an addressing schema without a
> corresponding protocol different, you're putting the cart before the horse.
>
> If you create an anycast protocol which has characteristics which are
> sufficiently different to unicast that it requires a separate addressing
> schema, then by all means it would be appropriate to create an
> addressing schema to fit in with this.  The determinant here would be
> that global unicast addresses would not be usable for this protocol.
> Until then, a separate address block is mostly a matter of aesthetics.
>

All of this suggests to me that you haven't read any of the draft at all.
Much if not all of this is covered.





> Nick
>