IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 30 May 2019 14:34 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 5640112019F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:34:02 -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 mxjv58wxPySJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C86B12012E for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876353826E; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E38D61081; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:33:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2355E0A; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:33:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2zv0oZroZ3kMY-mYWvJGhGfG6OruR7Ph_RgwOQMAJFZwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D22E680C-3EE3-4AD7-90C0-9339DA2E5A29@fugue.com> <BN6PR21MB04978DB375C05CB3CE4C914EA31F0@BN6PR21MB0497.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <4EF97F31-1F39-4150-B044-955C46E96FB4@fugue.com> <20190530002833.wfvjfbj2lv2ig664@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7A9560FC-0393-45DF-8389-B868455AC6DD@fugue.com> <83ABDD66-9B41-4845-A958-5B721FE78C1B@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2w9G=kKvfx58uVqU_Uy52AFeVvc_t7Pafm87dPThMxnkA@mail.gmail.com> <20190530010505.636r2insscoelzki@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAO42Z2zv0oZroZ3kMY-mYWvJGhGfG6OruR7Ph_RgwOQMAJFZwA@mail.gmail.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 10:33:57 -0400
Message-ID: <25577.1559226837@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kFGb2Zr2Azezv76cFIM0j7dAwRU>
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 14:34:02 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    > The problem with the Site-Local unicast address space is that multiple
    > nodes holding the same unicast address (as in, meant to permanently
    > and exclusively identify one and only one node - "uni") is a fault.
    > The Site-Local unicast address space inadvertently created a potential
    > fault condition by design because it created unicast address
    > ambiguity.

    > Multiple nodes intentionally holding the same anycast address (as in,
    > not permanently exclusive to one and only one node) is not a fault and
    > is expected.

So maybe site-local space can be used for scoped anycast?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email