Re: Fwd: Re: note from the iesg plenary

["Brian Haberman" <haberman@nortelnetworks.com>]

Eliot,

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> Not clear you want to have host routes in the global routing system, but
> that doesn't eliminate anycast use.  It means that the routing exchange on
> those /128s has to be limited to IGPs.

Exactly.  That means the anycast addresses being advertised have to
be allocated out of the "domain's" prefix, thus being aggregatable.
Users within an IGP would be able to use anycast to do (e.g.) DNS,
but the anycast route gets aggregated within BGP.

Users outside the domain COULD send to the anycast address and get
a response since the anycast address's prefix would be advertised
via BGP.

Brian

> 
> Brian Haberman wrote:
> > Eliot,
> >      Yes, I am well aware that DNS is an ideal use of anycast.  That is
> > part of the reason why v6 anycast is of interest to people.  However,
> > my point has been to find out if anyone thinks that having 128-bit host
> > routes in the global routing table is going to scale.  Or, would you
> > think that anycast DNS deployed within a domain/site/admin scope
> > region is a better solution?
> >
> > Brian
> --
> Eliot Lear
> lear@cisco.com