>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:39:01 -0700,
>>>>> Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My worry is that this would be rather confusing & nonintuitive for users.
> Indeed. My only reason for suggesting it is to provide backwards
> compatibility for implementations that are already using interface IDs
> (instead of link zone IDs) in the sin6_scope_id field for link-local
> addresses. Perhaps this backwards compatibility goal could be met in a
> different way, e.g., applying the "non-intuitive" semantics described
> above only to link-local addresses, or saying that interface IDs can
> serve as link zone IDs iff a node is attached to one link per interface
> (by far the dominant case).
I prefer the latter, (which is the intention of KAME's current
implementation.)
> That latter suggestion is kinda the opposite
> of Dave Thaler's suggestion that for scopes that have not locally been
> assigned zone IDs, an app can use the IDs of a larger zone; in this case,
> we would be saying that an app can use the IDs of a smaller zone.
> My *preference* would be to say that sin6_scope_id must contain a zone
> ID of the same scope as the accompanying address.
Me too. And if we take this way, is there any strong reason to define
a single space shared by all scopes? (I don't necessarily oppose the
idea for now, but I'm just wondering.)
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
