In your previous mail you wrote: > 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. => agree!
[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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
