Re: [OSPF] Anycast Extension to OSPFv3 draft-wang-aospf-00

Speaking as a WG Member and author of the RFC 2740 respin:

My opinion is that the protocol extensions described in the draft
are completely unnecessary and the OSPFv3 (RFC 2740 and its
update) already can support anycast addresses as /128 prefixes.
One simply uses the lowest cost path. Note that the protocol
already support configuration of host routes as described in appendix
C.7.

Thanks,
Acee

Acee Lindem wrote:
> Speaking as WG Chair:
>
> I'd like to initiate discussion on this draft so that we can let the 
> authors
> know whether the WG wants to presue it furthers.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> Yue Wang wrote:
>> This document describes AOSPF (Anycast Extensions to OSPFv3),
>>   a routing protocol which extends OSPFv3 to support anycast, which
>>   we implemented and tested successfully in our IPv6 test bed. And
>>   the performance analysis shows the overhead of AOSPF is low.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wang-aospf-00.txt
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf