attachment-0001
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Ira,<div><br><div><div>On May 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Ira McDonald <<a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">Hi Mike,<br><br>I concur w/ this I believe, certainly for IPv6 link-local addresses.<br><br>Does this also apply to ZeroConf IPv4 link-local addresses?<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, all link-local addresses have this issue, however the problem with IPv4 link-local addresses is typically mitigated by only having a single network interface bound to the link-local subnet (e.g. cross-over cable direct to printer) while IPv6 allows link-local on any subnet so clients can't make any assumptions if they have more than one network interface (pretty much the norm these days...)</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: Helvetica; ">__________________________________________________</span></div><div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; border-spacing: 0px; "><div>Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<br></div></span>
</div>
<br></div><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>