Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:48:02 -0500
From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010306084100.0352dd40@loopback>
| I'll ask for confirmation of this hypothesis, as thinking about site local
| addresses generally makes my head hurt.
To be legal yes, that's how it would have to be - B would need to be
at a site boundary, and not forwarding site local from one to the other.
The comment from the original message "The addresses are unique within
their respective scopes." suggests that must be the intent.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Question on scopes involving IPv6 addresses alex r
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Alain Ritoux
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Steve Deering
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Alex R n
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Ralph Droms
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Robert Elz
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Steve Deering
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Robert Elz
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Francis Dupont
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Robert Elz
- RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 ... Jim . Bound
- Re: Question on scopes involving I... Paul Francis
