As things stand today, you are right - "Scope" becomes only another factor in the routing decision of a packet.
However, if we make it more explicit, and allow communication only among addresses at the same scope, I don't see it as such a pain to hosts and apps. Address selection is not to complex (not as simple as "everyone have a global address", but far simpler than what we have now). Could you be more specific? -- Nir Arad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: Re: Let's abolish scope [Re: Unicast scope field (was: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing)] > binding scope to an address works about as well as binding QoS to an > address. sure you can do it as a hack, and it's fairly easy for the > network to implement, but it's a royal pain for hosts and apps. > > Keith > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
