Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:02:38 -0400
From: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The problem with using FECO::/10 for these addresses is that there
| are implementations that include special semantics to handle
| the ambiguity of FECO::/10 addresses, such as requiring a Zone ID
| to disambiguate FECO::/10 addresses, setting up separate routing
| tables for separate FECO::/10 zones, etc.
All that is OK, there's no implementation that I know of that requires
that SL addresses exist in multiple scopes. An implementation as you
describe it will work just fine, making use only of one scope for all
of these addresses, until perhaps some later version of the system
stops using the scope identifiers altogether.
Nothing is going to break.
| In Bob's proposal, addresses are globally unique
Once again, no, they're not. The difference between them and the SL
that we have had is that we are going to ignore the non-uniqueness,
rather than explicitly handle it.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
