>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:16:50 +0300,
>>>>> Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Possibly, however from Section 2.5.3 "The Loopback Address" it says:
>>
>> The unicast address 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is called the loopback address.
>> It may be used by a node to send an IPv6 packet to itself. It must
>> not be assigned to any physical interface. It is treated as having
>> link-local scope, and may be thought of as the link-local unicast
>> address of a virtual interface (typically called "the loopback
>> interface") to an imaginary link that goes nowhere.
> Hmm.. i've missed this. For me loopback address has always had a "node
> local" scope, and it seems to work fine logically.
We should first note that the notion of "node local" scope was
deprecated in RFC3513. But I suspect there is almost no difference in
practice between (now deprecated) "node-local" and "link-local of the
loopback link", in that addresses of those scopes should not be leaked
outside the node. (So, it's not surprising that "it seems to work
fine", whether the official definition is "node-local" or "link-local
of the loopback link").
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
