RE: Question on scopes involving IPv6 addresses

[Jim . Bound]

whoops FF05 below should have been FF05 and FEC0.  the new addr-scope-arch-02 draft takes care of this too nicely.  I am not sure in that draft using different routing tables for each zone is best in ALL iimplementation cases.  I can think of several where it is not. /jim   Having the scope be part of the IPv6 address or having other distinguishing attribute in the NLA (which is null now) was discussed and rejected. I was supportive of this idea.   But it does add an entire address space management part to IPv6 site local addresses.  My input is don't go there. Implementations will have to have scoping code following the scope-arch-02 draft architecture.  How that is done is and should be implementation specific.  I think maintaining tables in an implementation is a question of the type of implementation.  I think its better to extend existing OS kernel protocol control block structures and search algorithms to be scope aware.  This also means that information can be extracted by user space applications for management of scopes and for source/destination address selection.  But all should use the assumption that FF05 prefixes will only exist within a site and will not overlap sites, because they can be duplicated.