At 5:21 PM -0700 6/29/00, Richard Draves wrote:
>I'm (mildly) concerned about how much state an implementation has to
>maintain per interface. Right now in the interface structure we have fields
>for an interface id and a site id. If our implementation might be used in
>boundary situations for the different multicast scope levels, does that mean
>the interface structure must grow to accommodate ~16 zone ids at the
>different levels?
In theory, yes, though there are probably a number of other, more space-
efficient ways to implement it (e.g., a zone table that is a list of zones,
each with a bitmap identifying the interfaces belonging to that zone).
If you are worried about the size, but want to keep your current
implementation, perhaps you can make each interface's zone list be a
linked-list of dynamically-allocated elements, and in all but the rarest
of cases would be very short lists.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
