At 4:42 PM -0700 6/29/00, Dave Thaler wrote:
>For example scop 4, being smaller than site-local scope,
>should use the site-local scope ids. If you're
>in multiple sites, you can't assume all interfaces
>are in the same scop 4 zone.
Hmm, yes, I can see how you can use that approach to avoid creating
zone indices for scop 4 on site-boundary nodes. I was working from
the assumption that you *would* have scop 4 zone ids on such a node,
i.e., *if* scop 4 were configured to be used within a site, it
would have to be configured on all site-boundary nodes.
However, you still need the capability to explicitly configure scop 4
zone ids on site-boundary nodes, in case the node is attached (via
different interfaces) to more than one scop 4 zone within the same site.
And you also need the capability to configure scop 4 zone ids on nodes
that are internal to a site, i.e., not site-boundary nodes.
>So my proposed correction to Steve's rule is:
>"Whenever dealing with an address (multicast or unicast) of
>a scope for which you are not a boundary, the appropriate zone
>is unambiguous, so the sin6_scope_id is the same zone id of
>the next larger scope for which you are a boundary (e.g., zero
>if you are not a boundary for any larger scope level)."
That's still not quite right, because if you are a boundary for
scope x, you are *necessarily* a boundary for all configured scopes
less than x, since a smaller zone cannot span across boundaries
of a larger zone.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
