Just wondering if you should include a group address in your definition. Up until now, I think everyone is thinking about unicast-type addresses.
Not necessary, I think, as our charter is to define these terms for abstract discussions, not document current (ab)uses.
I think we're in agreement that 'group address' is actually only a result of the overloading of 'group identifiers' onto a true 'address space'.
And also, to bring up the point Joel made, an anycast address is also known as a way to use (or abuse) a unicast address. Rather than having a formal definition and encoding (like IPv6 does).
Agreed. Just another overloading... Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
