At 03:17 PM 8/20/02 , Brian Zill wrote: >Hi Charlie, > > > I haven't studied the multi-link subnet draft. But, in order > > to be responsive to your note before taking that time... > >I guess we're just going to have to disagree about link-local vs. >subnet-local. These are two distinct scopes and should be treated as >such by the architecture. One shouldn't assume that because you can >reach a node via a global address in the same subnet prefix as you that >you can also reach it via a link-local address. "DIID" breaks this by >making the false assumption that these scopes are equivalent.
I agree that link-local and subnet-local would be different scopes. What surprised me is the assumption that a subnet scope would be "larger" than a link-local scope. I've had experience running multiple subnets on a single L2 link, but I have not had experience running a single subnet across multiple L2 links. So, while you indicate that a link-local address may not be able to reach all nodes on a subnet, isn't it also true that a subnet-local address may not be able to reach all of the nodes on a link? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
