Jinmei JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
> > 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. > What would this zone mean to the client requesting the info? The zone-id is meaningless without the accompanying address. It only has meaning on the node it is defined with the address of given scope. The whole scope duplication (in zone-id and address) is dubiouse since we don't allow any more having scope mismatches between the zone-id and the address scope. > >>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. The scope of the wildcard is wildcard i.e. it belongs to all scopes. I might be limed by specified a zone-id if we want to allow it (I think Dave Thaler originally proposed this on the api list). -vlad -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
