Pekka Savola wrote:
> New addrarch draft says ff0e::/16 is global-scope.
Where? What I see on page 16 is:
Reserved Multicast Addresses: FF00:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
...
FF0E:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
FF0F:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
The above multicast addresses are reserved and shall never be
assigned to any multicast group.
> I took this as an example of delivering packets to an IPv6
> node when it
> might not be possible to do so directly (example: link-local
> addresses).
I am not seeing your scenario. Could you send a picture?
> Why would a host have any reason to be 6to4 aware? I sure
> would like to
> know more of this. AFAICS that implementation wouldn't be
> honouring RFC
> 3056 definition of 6to4 host:
>
> an IPv6 host which happens to have at least one 6to4 address.
> In all other respects it is a standard IPv6 host.
The RFC 3056 context of a 6to4 host is one that receives an RA which
contains a 6to4 format prefix. It is also possible that the host has no
IPv6 router, but includes that function within itself. In the strict
sense the functions are separate, but the fact that they are in the same
box results in the case where a 6to4 host may have a 6to4
pseudo-interface.
> That is, site-local and link-locals
> would not be a
> problem with tunneling.
Link local is not to be forwarded off link in any case, and I have
always believed that site-locals don't go out over the global tunnel
interface, but there doesn't appear to be a specific statement about
that in the current documents.
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
