In your previous mail you wrote:
> When sending a multicast packet in IPv4, one has the choice of either
> identifying a specific outgoing interface or leaving it to the IP layer
> to choose an outgoing interface (the "default" multicast interface).
Exactly and this is all we should do for the basic API right now.
=> we'd like to keep this when the sin6_scope_id is zero. In fact
I believe the current idea is to extend the (non-zero) sin6_scope_id
semantics and to specify what happens with multicast (where different
incompatible proposals are already implemented). If someone uses the
old style (mainly interface indexes for link-local and zero
sin6_scope_id for others) then one should get *exactly* the same behaviour.
> ... Then, I think we could
> probably get rid of IPV6_MULTICAST_IF altogether (i.e., deprecate it).
I would claim all this sounds good but not real.
=> I believe that Steve has launched the idea of a nice extension of
the current API. If it is a sound extension (ie. the old part remains
as it is) this will satify both your concern (not yet a new API!) and
our (do the best possible usage of sin6_scope_id).
In fact I think things
will change again if we adopt global unique identifiers for site-local
addresses which will be presented at some point in time to the WG.
=> I believe this point is about multi-sited nodes where the old API
can't help (just because we didn't understand the issue) then the
new extension can only be an improvement.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
