In your previous mail you wrote:
I really don't like the idea of sharing the same numbering space
between interface ids and scope ids of higher levels, and requiring
uniqueness among them.
=> if link-local scope IDs are named link IDs and have in general
the same value set than interface IDs per accident have you still
an objection?
if_nametoindex() and related functions wouldn't
be helpful for an app wanting to choosing a link.
=> I agree the confusion between interface indexes and link IDs is
confusing but with two sets of functions (one for interface indexes,
one for scope IDs) to have the same name is only user convenience.
This argument can be used for IPV6_MULTICAST_IF, PKTINFO, ..., too.
I believe the reception interface (for both unicast
and multicast) can already be obtained if you use recvmsg.
=> my purpose was just to recall how recvfrom() and co should fill
the sin6_scope_id field. I think there already is an agreement about that
(and I'd like to show no change is needed for this).
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
