Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:59:58 -0400
From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Exactly. The entire IPv6 code base would be reduced in size and more
| importantly the decision constructs and data struct lookups which is a
| big win.
Can you actually justify that, or is this just more nonsense?
Remember that as long as link locals stay, and as long as their are
apps that use them (doesn't BGP peering use LL's these days?) then all
of the system support for scoped addresses has to remain, including the
data structs, API's, ...
What you would gain by removing them is the change from testing
fe80::/9 into testing fe80::/10 when deciding if the address you
have is one that also needs a scope. Beyond that it is essentially
all the same if scopes are involved - are the scopes for source &
destination the same, etc - regardless of whether it is fe80::/10 or
fec0::/10 that the address happens to be.
So, just where is this saving?
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
