At 11:19 PM -0400 6/26/00, Jim Bound wrote:
>Hello, Mr. Customer I am vendor X and here is my new IPv6 product, but
>beware it will break your network server apps but go ahead implement
>sitelocal addresses with overlapping servers.
By "overlapping server", do you mean a server directly connected to more
than one site? If so, sensible vendors Y and Z would say:
Hello, Mr. Customer I am vendor Y and here is my new IPv6 product
[ported in two hours from my old IPv4 product]. If you are using
site-local addressing, be aware that each site will need its own
copy of the server. We have a special deal for you if you buy more
than one. :-)
Hello, Mr. Customer I am vendor Z and here is my new IPv6 product
which has been enhanced to support multiple sites from the same server.
>As far as my idea. No way will I have a draft before Pittsburgh. That
>ain't happening. I am willing to present the idea on the agenda
>depending on what times/days IPng is happening at Pittsburgh.
>Thats ujp to you and Bob.
Let's see how the discussion here plays out before deciding about that.
> >In any case, I *think* the existing sin6_scope_id field in the API makes
> >IPv6_MULTICAST_IF redundant, so the latter could be deprecated now,
> >even if sin6_scope_id is only ever used to identify interfaces, rather
> >than interfaces plus zones.
>
>...So for this spec deprecation is not a good idea.
OK, you and and Tim have convinced me of that.
>Hmmm for some reason I can't find the -01 version.
It should appear in the ID directories in a day or two. It was posted
to the ipng list on March 22, so if you archive past ipng mail, you
might find it sooner there. (Or send me mail and I will send you a
personal copy.)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
