Re: [PATCH] anycast support for IPv6, updated to 2.5.44

["David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>]

   From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:44:28 +0900 (JST)

   In article <20030319.192331.95884882.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 19 Mar 2003 
19:23:31 -0800 (PST)), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
   
   > Please propose alternative API, or do you suggest not
   > to export this facility to user at all?
   
   I like to assign address like unicast (using ioctl and rtnetlink 
   (RTN_ANYCAST)).
   We suggest you not exporting this facilicy until finishing new API
   (And, another API would be standardized;
   This is another reason why I am against exporting that API for now.)

I think anycast addresses are more like multicast than unicast.  Do
you agree about this?

But here is what really matters, does the advanced IPV6 socket API
say anything about a user API for anycast?