> Once we start handing out addresses whose practical scope is less than
> global, we either need proxies (eg NAT) or multi-homing.
I disagree.
One reason I disagree is that when we make global addresses unreachable,
this is usually done because policy dictates that those hosts not be
reac
below...
Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thomas Narten wrote:
> > >
> > > I reviewed the revised document today. Speaking as an individual, here
> > > is my reaction:
> > >
> > > > Abstract
> > > >
> > > >This document specifies the IPv6 Flow Labe
Itojun,
> minor nit:
> NI_NUMERICSCOPE appears in the text (page 24) but not in section 7.
Thanks for catching that. The reference to NI_NUMERICSCOPE
on page 24 should be removed, it was part of the stuff
that moved to draft-ietf-ipv6-scope-api-00.txt.
It may be too late to fix this...
- Jack
Hi
I am developing a Web server , router , load balancers, Gateway and Switch
testing software.
I have read the RFC reagrding the addressing in IPv6 and I understood that
Web servers , routers , load balancers, Gateways and Switches can have
either Unicast or Multicast or Anycast address.
I am