Robert Elz wrote: > > 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.
To be more precise, we are going to define them in a way that makes them extremely likely to be unique, and then treat them as if they are mathematically unique. To me, that's good enough. I don't mind too much which prefix we use. A clean separation from FEC0 might be safer. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
