Brian, > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't recall that we ever promised to support scoping > of unicast addresses.
Not explicitely, but the idea about IPv6 has been since the beginning that it would better than IPv4 with more bits (which we could have delivered years ago). One of these things that could make it better is scoping for unicast addresses. Specifically, I do not see how we could remove ambiguity of private addresses at this time without something like scoping. > RFC 1752 refers to the scope field in multicast addresses, > which I certainly don't propose to abolish. Separate issue; I was not thinking about multicast at all. > I don't see why the lack of explicit scope for IPv6 > unicast is an inhibitor. See above. As I said earlier, it has good sides and bad sides. From the enterprise network manager point of view, I do think that many actually care a lot about what kind of simplification scoping can bring in terms of access-control and security. Specifically, although the routers will continue to think in terms of IPO addresses, scoping could bring some automation in building default access-lists that would be nice to have. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
