>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:59:01 +0200,
>>>>> Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> An example: a site-local address fec0::1 on the #2 site can
>> represented as fec0::1%5.2 (where 5 means the site scope and 2 means
>> the 2nd site)
> But "fec0::1%2" is exactly same, the site scope (5) is implicit from
> the address?
Yes.
> Can you give an example of case where the scope is not associated with
> address? If there is such case, then explicit <scope_type> is useful,
> but otherwise always unnecessary?
As described in the 03 draft, one possibility is a kind of MIB entry
which only specifies a particular zone (of a particular scope type).
Such a possibility is one of the reasons to adopt this type of format
since the 03 version.
> Or, this allows then to write "fec0::1%2.2". Is this intended to be
> allowed or flagged as an error?
This should be treated as an error, as described in the 03 draft.
> Btw. what is the scope level of address "::"? = 0?
Hmm, good question. I personally think "::" can be treated as a
global scope with regards to the scope architecture, because it does
not cause ambiguity about the "zone". And, in fact, our current
implementation treats "::" as a global address for convenience, and it
works without anomaly.
Can we agree on this? Then we'll clarify this point in the next
revision of the draft.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
