Keith, Keith Moore wrote: >> My point is that I believe that a clean separation should be made >>between global addresses and scoped addresses. We fully understand >>how globals and link-locals work. All the others are still being >>hashed out. If we make this break, the address architecture can >>move along the standards track. The (great amount of) additional >>work that needs to be done on scoped addresses can be carried out >>under the scoped address architecture. > > > actually I'd claim that we don't really understand how link-locals > work, at least not from the applications viewpoint. but I enthusiastically > support the idea of separating the work on globals from the work > on scoped addresses.
I believe we do have a good understanding on how link-locals work with utility protocols (ICMP, ND, MLD, routing protocols). That is why the LL are needed in the base addressing architecture. As for LL and user apps, I can't speak authoratively on the subject. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
