On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:55:00 PDT, Tony Hain said: I'm confoozled here... First you say: > The point is they don't when they claim to be passing around 'opaque > identifiers', at the same time they are explicitly assuming the content > of that opaque object is a valid topology object at the receiver. Right - and the entire problem with "site local" addresses is that they are almost by definition ambiguous if they ever escape. The host sending the opaque blob has no a priori way of knowing if the blob will be in the *right* scope when you get there. I get tons of spam that have "http://192.168.1.10/...."; URLs. Whoops. > According to the definition above, anycast is one such case. Given that > anycast is in daily operational use, there must be a requirement for > addresses to refer to different physical devices in different parts of > the network. Again, the biggest problem with using anycast is guaranteeing that all references to "the same" object actually look identical - for instance, all sorts of amusement can be obtained by running an anycast root DNS server where the various instances advertise different serial numbers on the SOA for '.'. Ambiguous addresses are a Bad Idea.
Attachment:
pgp00224.pgp
Description: PGP signature