On 16 feb 2008, at 2:21, Tony Hain wrote:
3) the 3.5 discussion about accepting prefixes from other ISPs that might contain a 6rd anycast is just wrong. First there is no way for an ISP to know which prefix its peer is using for a 6rd relay. Second, there is no reason to preclude it since the IPv6 6rd prefix would not match for theirsites, and the local CPE would not be configured for the other ISP'sanycast, so the local CPE would never be attempting to send to the otherISP's 6rd anycast relays even if there is a route.
What is a "6rd anycast address", anyway? I couldn't figure it out from the draft. The definition certainly isn't helpful:
6rd ISP anycast address: IPv4 anycast address chosen by a 6rd ISPFrom what you're saying it sounds an awful lot like what happens with 6to4, but that doesn't make any sense because we already have 6to4 and although that's certainly useful, it has the downside that it's impossible to improve the quality of the 6to4 experience. So the basic idea of something that is as simple to set up as 6to4 but where the routing is under control of an ISP is very attractive.