JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:58:22 +0200, > >>>>> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > So I don't believe that a scope field as part of the address format > > is a meaningful idea, because I don't think scope is a single- > > valued function in the first place. > > (I'm just wondering) What exactly are you proposing, if you are > anything? Are you saying we should deprecate the "scop" filed of IPv6 > multicast addresses? > > JINMEI, Tatuya > Communication Platform Lab. > Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No. I should have made it clear that I was talking strictly about unicast. Scope for multicast is an entirely different matter, and I assume it is needed. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
