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 <> Sun, 03 November 2019 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7BA120024 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:51:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iaPZc4zQ7d50 for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F37812001E for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 77so8363697oti.12 for <>; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:51:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QQfn5/R5VlKweY0gSj8kZdL7D8jBI0iblOyGRw2xafk=; b=i8dVCsiTn2zgXxFr/zOjM/bQbhG0gzrwQbOi5C1s0oLNeVqlxrgOOT8tsBgOUOQSiG not4aL9TbVinueNpkFDC6PaIIJa9LaR0u84pQXn6m7239JV5/0uMxRIoJRb14jg/mKdy zcCGbH3RCimcqOWf1KYMvwZryAXiHzlyOiiYFTEJIhXEpqK8Gyb5UO/7+DYra37xxIZm vDNBpHMVteLccCbvA6dZLixiYZqM0iBALePKal/rNgK0IvYzKqYejxqeNFpYrlSDjPil 4dYdkSbGLt02wvxPSgjwuoUmWogp1Zsk522siS/zSiIk5DYUPR3KqYmgtE1WSfbIy371 yLgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QQfn5/R5VlKweY0gSj8kZdL7D8jBI0iblOyGRw2xafk=; b=teLhVMUm+HGte8m5svVXD7qaeaw/uPEL/SU89lAwUTtM5SCOjycQrFKpU2Ufg+2sPz RKwnB5IG+ss0dfq4DeAn8qoZP27UM1DWe1I6aTGxYar22JPHkF2kDzvA3WwCN/3wy1BH y/lULRvBlAW2uDuzLiAnvhawuUANfNIgf9iIxoH4YNtTwBWjCeJPfQT1GiwDVc/IhVKb Aotnz6tHhiECPZfuyj4HK4fwTJgaf3ORUrkH3EjBXmT7OjWHv81lEjMiMa2lcGFm6T+B sIIh+RBw6Oz2uFz5zCS3sHfAHPyxb45+nFUH5pK3LfOcte6euEFEDuSzrxZwJgEKl4nK UPZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU9N+SVFBh/AtKoPWDTgTHv0gXmHZY1eY0cbvzgWJE9ouxPZVdN /2ld8UwgK6qD7kQ2lzK8yJPhiZ2TmG4zobeVZ5+yow==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2jPcHBQn8i1GtdPYYQSEMwJgLDtQPpKQfVMK65BVlcrm3yHEvlXkOORlzPSATnj/FTcF1J0zexgioMI1tS4U=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:4c8:: with SMTP id s8mr13102313otd.257.1572817873527; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:51:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:51:02 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Formal Anycast Addresses and Functional Anycast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6man-form-func-anycast-addresses-01.txt)
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: 6MAN <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5e77c0596783290"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 21:51:15 -0000

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, 01:23 Nick Hilliard, <> 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