IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 30 May 2019 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44DF120092 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6OJm5B9cShJ0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE3E12011B for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED413826E; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8D7691081; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C04BE0A; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
cc: 6man@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
In-Reply-To: <D22E680C-3EE3-4AD7-90C0-9339DA2E5A29@fugue.com>
References: <D22E680C-3EE3-4AD7-90C0-9339DA2E5A29@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 10:44:49 -0400
Message-ID: <28354.1559227489@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/g4_-1OxGsA3swQAlevhBiRvdacs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:44:56 -0000

Ted, having read through the thread, maybe you can do this with a multicast address which
typically has only one listener :-)

In ROLL, when doing the MPL work, we would up making the Admin-Local scope
multicast more precise.  We did this in RFC7732.
Probably not... but the concept you want is Admin-Local scope.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email