At 12:29 PM +0900 3/21/02, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote: >Perhaps we have two choices: > >1. treat :: as global >2. does (explicitly) not define the scope type (level) of :: > >Even the choice 2 will make the document clear, and it will not cause >a problem in a practical point of view.
I think of :: as indicating the absence of an address, in which case it doesn't have any scope. For those who feel the need to assign a scope value to ::, it's probably safest to treat it as link-local (for example, to ensure that a router receiving a packet with a source address of :: is not forwarded to another link). 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
