Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 addresses

[Alex R n]

>>> JINMEI Tatuya / $(B�_–¾’B�Æ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/06/01 04:24PM >>> >>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:38:40 +0100, >>>>> Alain Ritoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Is the following a valid configuration in IPv6. The >> addresses represented in as (L) are either all site >> local or all link local addresses >> A(L1)---------(L2)B(L1)----------(L2)C >> >> B is connected to two different links / sites. The >> addresses are unique within their respective scopes. > For me this seems correct Yes, this is correct. > But I wonder if we can push as far as : >     A(L1)---------(L2)B(L2)----------(L1)C >     the assumptions being the same. This is correct, too, provided that the B's two interfaces belong to different links.  For more details about the scoped addresses (including link-local and site-local ones) architecture, see draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-xx.txt (the 01 version is the latest one, which has already expired, but the 02 version has been submitted and will soon be out.)   Going through scoped address architecture it provides a mechanism to distinguing the same address belonging to different scopes. What I am wondering is that   a) Couldnt the scope index have been part of the IPv6 address. b) For upper layers like UDP which identifes a connection based on addresses wouldnt it be better to put the scope index into the address itself.   One scenario is that we could have the same [source src port destination dst port ]  pairs from different scopes as in the scenario earlier seen. Is the upper layer suppose to handle this in a different manner like having scoped tables.   Thanks Alex