At 5:39 PM +0900 2/21/02, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote: > >>>>> Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > The loopback link does not require a link-local address. If you have > > virtual links that can have more than one node attached (e.g., some > > people refer to an IP tunnel as a virtual link), those links will > > need link-local addresses for the (virtually) attached nodes. > >This is quite reasonable, but seems to contradict a requirement in the >address architecture draft: > > All interfaces are required to have at least one link-local unicast > address (see section 2.8 for additional required addresses). >(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt, Section 2.1)
In the scoped addresss architecture draft, we say: The IPv6 unicast loopback address, ::1, is treated as having link- local scope within an imaginary link to which a virtual "loopback interface" is attached. effectively saying that the ::1 loopback address is a special-case link-local address. >We may have to clarify this point before the draft is in an RFC >status. I agree. Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
