At 9:52 AM -0700 6/27/00, Dave Thaler wrote:
>I really don't like the idea of sharing the same numbering space
>between interface ids and scope ids of higher levels, and requiring
>uniqueness among them.
>
>My reasoning is that ifindices are a link-layer id (per their original
>definition in MIB-II), whereas site ids are network-layer (and IPv6 only)
>ids with a very different meaning. It's a layer violation to ask for
>uniqueness among them.
The interface ids used by IP apps are (supposed to be) IP-layer concepts,
not link-layer concepts. For example, one link-layer ("physical") interface
might underlie multiple IP-layer ("logical") interfaces, such as tunnel
endpoints or the endpoints of multiple virtual circuits established over
the same physical interface. Conversely, multiple physical interfaces,
such as some point-to-point interfaces to a set of parallel trunks, might
be presented to the IP layer as a single IP-layer interface (with the
link-layer performing packet-striping across the trunks, invisible to IP).
>If the implementation used interface ids that were not ifindices, that would
>be a different thing, but then if_nametoindex() and related functions wouldn't
>be helpful for an app wanting to choosing a link.
Huh?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
