In your previous mail you 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?
=> I think that you already need this if you'd like to implement
scoped multicast forwarding (ie. in order to forward multicast packets
only to interfaces which belong to the right zone, you need to know
zones of each interfaces for each scope). Then I have a zone ID table
per interface and KAME has a similar thing...
Of course this isn't the biggest space hit for an interface by far.
=> note you need only 12 new zone IDs and 16 bits per ID are usually enough!
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: my concern is about the routing table (both size and organization).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
