In your previous mail you wrote:
> => it is a matter of taste... and things are very complex because
> we'd like to have different interpretation on emission and reception sides
> (my comment was about the emission side but for the reception side your
> proposal seems better)
I _really_ don't like having more than one interpretation.
=> I don't believe we should specify two different interpretations
but obviously we have to do the choice between:
- use interface indexes and make scope IDs not very useful for the
receiving side
- use traditional (ie as for unicast) scope IDs and make the sin6_scope_id
field nearly useless for emission to destinations to a scope larger
than link-local (the only thing I can see is to check interfaces
specified by IPV6_MULTICAST_IF are in the right zone)
I was in favour of the first solution, now I believe the second is better.
Since joining/leaving/specifying the outgoing interface can all be done by
ifindex using existing apis without the scope_id, I don't see them as
being a good argument for use of scope_id.
The bind, getaddrinfo (when DNS returns a multicast address for a given
name), etc calls are the ones that should be of primary interest in my
opinion. These tend to argue for zone ids, not interface indexes
(except for link-scoped where they're the same thing).
=> I agree (I've changed my mind)
> => before listing these, can zero sin6_scope_id give the traditional
> (ie IPv4) behaviour?
This is a different (but important) question, which some of us have
also been discussing offline.
=> you should have guess I am in favour of this too...
Regards
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
