I guess I would prefere a combination between B and C.
The thing that I like from (C) is the ability to specify
a scope (top 4 bits) with the unspecified address. This offers
some rather interesting flexibility that would be used in
more advanced applications. I haven't considered the implications
of allowing a full ID (both the '4' and the '28'). At first glance
the specifying the '28' in this case may be a bit too much.
The thing I disklike about (C) is that
scope(sin6_scope_id) <= scope(sin6_addr). This would
make it much harder to compare scoped addresses. Also
looking at numerical representation like this:
fec0::1%20000001
... it just looks wrong to me. It's essentially saying
that we have this site-local address in link scope.
I think we could add the first flexibility of (C) to
option B and not increase complexity alot.
-vlad
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich Tel: (603) 884-1079
Compaq Computer Corp. Fax: (435) 514-6884
110 Spit Brook Rd ZK03-3/T07
Nashua, NH 03062
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
