>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:14:17 -0400,
>>>>> "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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.
I see. I don't necessarily argue that it is unreasonable, but I'm just
a bit wandering what if someone wants to specify admin-local scope
zone that covers multiple sites...(still, the fact that we don't have
a concrete definition of site would be a source of confusion).
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
