>Thus I prefer
>
> <address>%<id_in_the_scope>
>
>and scope type is from address.
I also prefer this notation. It removes any ambiguity about
what a node is supposed to do if the address and the scope
number don't match.
>And, then make sure every address has
>a definite scope designated (the ones for which scope is a bit unclear
>are/were :: and "::/3" (eg. those pesky IPv4 mappen and kind
>addresses).
Every address has to have a scope, anyway, because routers need to know
when/if a packets should be forwarded. If an address should not be
forwarded at all, it is link-local. If it should be constrained
within a site, it is site-local. If it can be forwarded anywhere, it
is global. If this information is undefined for one or more types
of addresses, we need to define it.
If an address is never meant to be used on the wire, it is effectively
node-local. For a unicast addresses, I think that we should consider
these addresses link-local. That way, mistakes won't be propagated
across the network.
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
