Re: 6to4 anycast IP as source address / PTR record

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Pekka,

...
> I completely agree that this needs to be stated more clearly when/if RFC
> 3056 is rewritten.

It isn't the least ambiguous in 3056, since the
concept of an anycast relay is absent. The gap is in 3068.

> It would make a great sense to do that, IMHO, but I'm not sure if we're
> quite far enough yet to have gained sufficient understanding what needs
> to be clarified.  When 3056 is rewritten, it can probably be compressed
> to 10-15 pages at the same time. 

I don't see how. There are quite some variants of 6to4 that haven't
been used, but that doesn't seem to be grounds for undocumenting them.
I think it's 3068 that needs rewriting, to document what has been
learnt about using anycast relays to support host-based 6to4.

    Brian