> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:12:03 +0300,
> Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have to keep using the "node-local scope", because implementation
> architecture puts it into good use internally.
> There is some difference in link local and node local:
> - link local addresses can ac
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 08:16 +0300, Markku Savela wrote:
> > From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 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 I
FYI
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:02 -0400
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 63rd IETF Meeting
in Paris, France
X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org
X
> From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 physica
Jinmei,
Ah, yes, and I should have been more careful before sending the
message...RFC3513(addr-arch-v3) already has this change, which is not
in RFC2372 and is probably a result of the previous discussion.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry about the noise.
No problem. I was glad to fin
