[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sockaddr_in6::sin6_scope_id use

> From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
>    The idea of having a scope id which is of different type than than the
>    address was rejected.
> => please don't reopen old discussion if you have no new argument.

I'm Sorry. I have then missed the discussion on this mailing list
since Seattle meeting, after which in followup messages I was
mistakenly left impression that 4+28 model was not chosen.

In any case, it was my intention to open this discussion, I just
forgot the "?"-mark after the above statement!

>    Currently, I'm writing a version where identifiers scope type is
>    *always* determined from the address -- you cannot have isolated scope id.
> => the consensus is we'd like to have "isolated" scope ids.

This is fine, I'm not objecting to 4+28. I was just noting that so far
while implementing scoped addressing architecture, I have not found
any need for 4+28 yet.
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com