On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, 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.
Agree. Consider a TCP session to a node which has fe80::1 assigned on two of its interfaces, at least sounds potentially problematic. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
