> Paul's draft won't do a thing towards allowing the address scope to
> not be a separate parameter (one way or another), which is what Alex
> was asking about I think. In fact, if anything, it finally removes
> that possibility completely. The only way the two could co-exist
> would be to remove the default site local (the current one) as a
> possible address completely, and to insist that all site local
> addresses be unique (not just nearly unique). As things are, there's
> still the (strong because of the default case) possibility that
> site local addresses aren't unique in two links out of a site border
> node.
It extends bits to the left of the SLA to be used to differentiate one site
from the other and it does solve Alex's problem in a different way. Thats
all I mean't.
>
> And in any case, there would be link locals to deal with.
>
That has nothing to do with site locals FE80 vs FEC0 is pretty easy to
parse.
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
