Steve Deering wrote: > > 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).
I agree with the concept of :: not having any scope. If I had to pick a scope for the unspecified address, it would appear to have more of the characteristics of the multicast interface-local scope. But since it is not a multicast address, link-local should suffice. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
