>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:51:02 -0400,
>>>>> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This rule may be sometimes controversial, but I personally think it is
>> reasonable, because we can (in theory) expect better reachability for
>> a smaller scope of destinations. This is especially true for a
>> link-local destination where we don't need L3 routing.
> Rule #2 is not a problem, rule #8 is. The problem is that the address
> selected for one connection pair may end up getting reused in other
> scope. So if rule 8 results in an LL or SL address being used, there
> might be an attempt to reuse that address (perhaps by another application
> component) in a different scope.
(I'm not sure what "reuse" exactly means here, but) It seems to me
that the issue you raised up is how an application treats
(i.e. disambiguates) scoped addresses, rather than (destination)
address selection. As long as the application may take a particular
numeric address as the destination and the address may be a scoped
one, the application should deal with the weirdness of scoping. Just
preferring global addresses (when available) does not help the
application.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
