In your previous mail you wrote:
Re "if scop 4 were configured to be used within a site"...
So if we have a host with interfaces in two sites, and
there's no manual configuration related to scop 4, and
if an app tried to send to or join a multicast group
in scop 4 are you saying that the send/join would fail?
I'd rather be liberal in what we accept here and have it
succeed, which is what I was trying to allow.
=> the unspecified zone (ie. zero sin6_scope_id) can give a default
zone in scop 4 if a default rule has been configurated (the existence
of a default rule should be optional).
> 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.
I didn't follow this. I was suggesting that you don't need
separate scop 4 zone ids in this config, you use the same ids
as for scop 5 (and you use a disjoint numbering space as Erik
suggested to disambiguate this).
=> we have not (yet) defined the meaning of a zone ID for a scope larger
than the address. The only hairy case is where it is ambiguous, for instance
in this context one specify a site when the node has interfaces in two
zones of scope 4 in this site. Again we can introduce an optional
default rule (a new one if this site is not the default site)...
Content-Type: text/html;
=> I think this part has no more information (ie. its purpose is just
to make the message far larger :-) ?
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: here my concern is still with the routing table...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
