whoops FF05 below should have
been FF05 and FEC0. the new addr-scope-arch-02 draft takes care of this
too nicely. I am not sure in that draft using different routing tables for
each zone is best in ALL iimplementation cases. I can think of several
where it is not.
/jim
|
- Question on scopes involving IPv6 addresses alex r
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Alain Ritoux
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Steve Deering
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Alex R n
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Ralph Droms
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Robert Elz
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Steve Deering
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Robert Elz
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Francis Dupont
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Robert Elz
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Paul Francis
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Paul Francis