I have comments/questions on the scoping architecture draft.
First, I'd like to compliment the authors on writing such a
straightforward explanation of a complex topic.
> Each interface belongs to one node-local zone, one link-local zone,
> one site-local zone, and the global zone. Each link belongs to one
> link-local zone, one site-local zone, and the global zone. An
> interface or link only belongs to additional (i.e., multicast) zones
> if it falls within the configured boundaries of such additional
> zones.
Is this a (relatively) new restriction? I know that, in the past,
we had discussed the concept of overlapping sites. Does this draft
intentionally invalidate the possibility of overlapping sites (where
a single interface could be in more than one site)?
> Thus, the upper layer requires the
> ability, when sending a packet, to specify any zone of scope less
> than or equal to the scope of the destination address, including the
> case in which the destination address is of global scope. For this
> reason, an implementation might find it useful to assign a distinct
> value for each zone index, so that they are unique across all zones,
> regardless of scope.
Why not require a unique value in the architecture?
I'm also interested to know if anyone has considered the implications
of this specification on routing table management...
If I understand correctly, this specification adds a "key" (the
outbound zone ID) that is used for routing table lookups on both
hosts and routers (conceptually, to choose between routing tables).
The zone ID may identify a single interface or a group of interfaces.
The IPv6 routing table MIB should probably be updated to include this
new field.
If I understand correctly, this specification also requires that all
zone-boundary routers maintain information in each learned route entry
to indicate the zone in which the information was learned.
Should this also be reflected in a MIB?
I also have a question regarding zone-boundary routers... Is there
a distinction between zone-boundary and non-zone-boundary routers?
Or can any router that is attached to more than one link dynamically
become a zone boundary router due to reconfiguration or topology
changes?
If the latter, then all routers should maintain zone information
associated with their learned routes, in case they become a zone-
boundary router later on. Right?
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
