> I interpret the spec completely different than you and discussing it now
is
> a waste of both our time and the mail list. Also this should have nothing
> to do with link local.
>
> Paul can you shed some light on this conversation as Robert and I see your
> draft solving different problems : thanks...........
>
I don't undestand the first thing about scoped addresses. Robert's
interpretation is correct. All my draft says is that a site can reduce the
probability of prefix collisions with other sites by unilaterally sticking a
random number in the "zeros" field. In no way does it intend to change the
semantics or handling of the site local address (with the exception that it
reduces the frequency of renumbering events and/or allows two sites to
interconnect more easily).
Having said that, it is a well-known fact that if an IETFian finds a hammer
lying on the gound, he/she will use it to do almost anything, except perhaps
hammer nails. So I suppose there is some danger in making site-locals near
unique.
PF
ps. Dupont's comments (can't call him Francis, can I...sort of a scoping
problem) that this is Christian's idea not mine is 100% true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
