Re: my action items from sunday's rssac meeting

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

At Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:21:57 +0900 (JST), Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 
> > > whether ipv6 anycast is useful as specified.
> > 
> > it has been widely known to be so broken as to be irrelevant for
> > years
> 
> 	it is a problem with the term "anycast", it is used ambiguously.
> 	therefore i had to introduce distinction, in the i-d, between rfc2373
> 	anycast and ipv4 anycast practiced today.

itojun, i hear you, but while i agree that there's terminology
confusion here, i don't think this is just a terminology problem.  the
real issue is whether there is any known use (or serious prospect that
there ever will be any known use) for rfc 2373 anycast as specified.
randy's comment, while perhaps blunter than some, is consistant with
everything else i've heard.

my take is that rfc 2373 anycast suffers from ipv6 second system
syndrome, and that the correct action for the ietf to take would be to
admit that rfc 2373 anycast is not workable, clean it up, and move on.
this would of course require an i-d, discussion in the ipv6 wg, all
the proper open process stuff.  the questions are whether you agree
that this is the right approach, and whether you want to be one of the
draft authors :).