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 admit it would be a matter of taste, but I personally don't want to
have the different interpretation. The semantics of sin_scope_id can
be same for the reception and emission, and (IMO) it should be same.
=> it must be the same but we have to sacrify one side!
I don't think it is not necessarily a better thing. A user might just
want to specify a multicast group (with some zone ID) and let the
kernel send packets to that group on an appropriate interface(s)
according to the kernel's routing table, etc.
=> do you mean we should use the multicast routing table for
genuine packets (BSD IPv4 multicast is not very clear about this
for me, I have no concern but the specs need to be clear(er) about this).
This can make IPV6_MULTICAST_IF useless and/or things even more complex:
what semantics for sin6_scope_id on the sending side do you propose
(and is there a special case for the zero sin6_scope_id)?
Good question...my take is that zero means a "system default" zone of
the scope, but we could interpret zero as "wildcard". Anyway, it
should also be clarified, IMO.
=> I agree!
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I can see some progress (and a general agreement about both
the need for clarification (:-) and about the interest of this).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
