>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:17:46 +0200,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> We could implement Steve's proposal if we invented unique space of
> identifiers that covers all scopes. And I admit it would be useful if
> we can specify the outgoing interface by the sin6_scope_id field
> without any other APIs (such as socket options), but it would be too
> complecated for application programmers, especially on properly using
> different type of sin6_scope_id values (i.e. sometimes use it as an
> interface identifier, and sometimes use it as a zone identifier of a
> larger scope).
> => do you believe we should use conditional? In fact the sin6_scope_id
> space is not yet specified then in theory it is not too late.
I can't understand what you meant by "conditional" (sorry), but it is
correct that the semantics of sin6_scope_id is not yet defined. My
concern is possible confusion due to the complexity of the semantics
in the future.
By the way, do you intend to use the same approach for unicast
addresses?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
