In your previous mail you wrote:
That would mean having to differentiate sin6_scope_id for each address
which is not well defined today for anyone. Also with my thought of a
fix this all becomes uncessary if we use the rsvd bits in site-local to
provide uniqueness.
=> I don't believe this (reserved bits) idea will work because
even if we shout they should be random in order to avoid collisions
the human laziness will make only small values (1, 2, .., and don't
forget many will stay with zero because it is the current mandatory
value) to be used then they will collide.
All the problems of some well known IPv6 implementations using embedded
interface indexes in link-local addresses from place to place in the code
make me even less confident...
The sin6_scope_id is there in order to solve this issue, let it do its job!
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
