Subject: RE: (ngtrans) shipworm discussion and last call

From: Jung Cyndi-ACJ099 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:30:42 -0500

This might not be direct discussion of Shipworm, but the proposal uses IPv4
anycast in the source field of the packet, and in fact checks for that
address in verifying the packet.  Isn't there still a ban on IPv6 anycast
addresses in the source field?  Also, while the draft does suggest that the
Shipworm Router and the Shipworm Server could be co-located, the Shipworm
Server does not need to be a router, yet it does need to be able to be
addressable by the Shipworm IPv4 anycast address - the other ban imposed
on IPv6 anycast addresses.

Sorry if I am hopelessly uninformed and there are already movements to lift
the ban of IPv6 anycast addresses used as source or assigned to non-routers.
I am certainly in favor of lifting those restrictions - they are still present
in the latest address architecture documents.

Cyndi

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:26:42 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Jung Cyndi-ACJ099 wrote:
> addresses in the source field?

Yes, there is such a ban.

However, Shipworm _IPv4_ anycast does not have these restrictions.  I
don't see where in the draft IPv6 equivalent would be used as the source
address?

> Also, while the draft does suggest that the
> Server does not need to be a router,

Shipworm Server does not need to be Shipworm Router, but both AFAICS need
to be routers in IPv6 host/router sense; after all, they do forward
packets.

> yet it does need to be able to be

The ban on assigning anycast on non-routers is IMO a policy issue (it is
there only because "difficulties" with injecting host route for anycast)
and should definitely be changed to a recommendation.  I've noted the
authors on this, and hope that it would be changed as the revised draft is
in last call now, but haven't received feedback on this.

If one doesn't act now, the addrarch will be frozen for a couple of
years..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:33:39 -0700

if sourcing from an anycast address is to be banned, i find it amusing that
the very folk who would ban it in v6 propose to use it in v4.  perhaps there
is a lesson here.

randy

---

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:04:09 -0400

Cyndi,
     I have not had time to really process the shipworm spec, but I
have spent some time looking at the v6 anycast.  I am in the process
of trying to relax the restrictions on the use of v6 anycast addresses.
There is a first-cut at an anycast security requirements document,
draft-dondeti-ipv6-anycast-security-00.txt.  There is also a draft
specifying how the existing MLD protocol can be used to allow nodes to
signal anycast group membership to routers.  In addition, I am also
looking into the routing/system architecture needed to support the
general use of anycast.

Brian