> From: Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The idea of having a scope id which is of different type than than the > address was rejected. > > => please don't reopen old discussion if you have no new argument.
I'm Sorry. I have then missed the discussion on this mailing list since Seattle meeting, after which in followup messages I was mistakenly left impression that 4+28 model was not chosen. In any case, it was my intention to open this discussion, I just forgot the "?"-mark after the above statement! > Currently, I'm writing a version where identifiers scope type is > *always* determined from the address -- you cannot have isolated scope id. > > => the consensus is we'd like to have "isolated" scope ids. This is fine, I'm not objecting to 4+28. I was just noting that so far while implementing scoped addressing architecture, I have not found any need for 4+28 yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
