JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:46:37 -0400,
> >>>>> "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Yes, it is equivalent to the "local scope" defined in
> > RFC 2365 and RFC 2730. It should be noted that those documents
> > refer to IPv6 scope 3 currently, but will need to be changed
> > to scope 4.
>
> I see. Then I'd like to ask how large the admin-local scope is. Is
> there any relationship between other scopes?
>
> In fact, draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-01.txt says as follows:
>
> o for multicast scopes, scopes with lesser values in the
> "scop" subfield of the multicast address [RFC 2373,
> section 2.7] are smaller than scopes with greater values,
> with node-local being the smallest and global being the
>
> According to this description, admin-local is larger than link-local
> and smaller than site-local. Is my understanding correct? And if so,
> is the definition really reasonable? (Although it depends on the
> definition of "site").
>
Your understanding is correct (link-local <= scope 3 <= scope 4 <=
site-local).
Is it reasonable? I believe so. Several of us discussed this issue in
relation to RFC 2365 and determined that scope 4 allows for more
flexibility
in the use of admin scoped multicast.
Brian
--
Brian Haberman
Nortel Networks
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
