> >Good catch Margaret. I should have noticed that the example given >actually violates the scoped addressing architecture doc. The >forwarding logic is still correct, but you can only have, at most, >one zone id per scope per interface. Otherwise you would have >overlapping scope zones.
Are you sure? I originally began an answer to Robert's third example with something like "this is an invalid configuration". However, I realized that I was mistaken. Assuming that router B has support for multi-link subnets, Robert's example is a valid configuration showing a subnet-local zone that encompasses two links. There is no requirement that all hosts within a given zone need to configure addresses from (all of) the unicast prefix(es) within that zone, or that all routers need to advertise the same unicast prefixes on all interfaces within a given zone. Is there? The real question is this: By default, if a router is configured to advertise the same prefix on two interfaces, should the router assume that the two interfaces are in the same subnet-local zone? Should the router assume that the two interfaces are on the same link (i.e. in the same link-local zone)? These are questions that need to be answered in the scoped address architecture. I think it would be a reasonable default for a router that is configured with the same prefix on two interfaces to assume that those interfaces are on the same link (same link-local zone), and in the same subnet-local zone. In other words, I think that routers should default to the single-link subnet case, unless mutli-link subnetting has been explicitly configured. What do you think? Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
