Sorry I wasn't reading correctly - obviously you were discussing the unspecified address not the loopback address!!
It's not clear to me that the unspecified address has a well-defined scope level... > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Draves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:01 AM > To: Francis Dupont; JINMEI Tatuya / ???? > Cc: Markku Savela; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: poposed changes to the scoping architecture 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. > > I think the loopback address should be link-local scope (on a > virtual loopback link). It is obviously not global scope, > since it does not uniquely specify an interface. > > Note that draft-ietf-ipv6-default-addr-select-07.txt section > 2.4 also refers to this issue. > > Rich > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
