> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 August 2004 17:20
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
>
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:09:37 +0100,
> >>>>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The problem is the use of the term 'global' - address
> auto-configuration
> > will in principle work for any sort of address prefix if I
> understand
> > correctly.
>
> > One could use something like 'additional addresses' and
> then give global
> > unicast addresses as an example. This would make it clear
> that auto-config
> > can be used for any sort of address/address prefix beyond
> link local.
>
> I'm afraid the phrase of "additional addresses" is a little bit vague.
> If we need a compromise, perhaps we could add something to the
> definition of "global address" in Section 2 such as:
>
> global address - an address with unlimited scope. From stateless
> address autoconfiguration's perspective, it essentially means
> an address that has larger scope than link-local.
That would help - but then 'unlimited' and 'larger scope than link-local' are potentially contradictory (if unique local use actually happens - and multicast has lots of scopes in theory).
Could we use:
non-local address - an address which has a larger scope than link-local.
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center,
> Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
