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

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:52:55 -0700

> I would personally be perfectly happy if the ban on sourcing packets
> from IPv6 anycast addresses was lifted. There are clearly operational
> issues each time one use such a facility, but a complete ban is both
> counterproductive and unrealistic.

bingo! 

and, as an operator, there are operational issues for just about everything
anyway.  so we're used to it.  :-)

thank you.

randy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:35:06 +0900

>anyway.  so we're used to it.  :-)

	it is not clear to me whether IPv6 anycast and currently-practiced
	IPv4 "multiple entity reachable with a single unicast address" are the
	same thing.  my gut feeling is on
	draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-00.txt (where these two beasts
	are treated as completely separate entities).

itojun

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:34:15 -0500

> > counterproductive and unrealistic.

Anycast source addresses do have serious problems.  I had gotten the
impression that the IETF was opposed to putting more bullets in the
gun that's aimed at the unwary foot.  Not so?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:50:18 -0700

> Anycast source addresses do have serious problems.

so do unicast

> I had gotten the impression that the IETF was opposed to putting more
> bullets in the gun that's aimed at the unwary foot.  Not so?

the ietf still has a few people who actually have to operate the internet
hanging on.  we actually USE anycast.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 21:09:36 -0700 (PDT)

% 
% > Anycast source addresses do have serious problems.
% 
% so do unicast
% 
% > I had gotten the impression that the IETF was opposed to putting more
% > bullets in the gun that's aimed at the unwary foot.  Not so?
% 
% the ietf still has a few people who actually have to operate the internet
% hanging on.  we actually USE anycast.
% 
% randy
% 

 Your blanket statement is misleading at best.  Last I checked, you do not
 represent -ANY- of the primary operators of Internet infrastructure. You 
 used to represent -ONE- significant operator. It would be instructive to 
 have documented evidence of statistically significant use of anycast before
 buying into an assertion that anycast is safe to use.

--bill