>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:55:24 -0700,
>>>>> Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - If the answer to the previous question is yes, the interpretation of
>> in6_pktinfo.ipi6_ifindex can be differrent between the sending side
>> and the receiving side; for the sending side, we allow all type of
>> zone identifier (as far as it is valid according to the
>> corresponding address). For the receiving side, it is always
>> interpreted as an interface index.
> It's not just "interpreted" as an interface index; it is an interface
> index.
Okay, actually, my intention was that "it *was* an interface index".
Sorry for the confusing wording.
>> Regardless of the answers to the questions, I think I have to consider
>> the model more carefully...personally, I still think we should go with
>> a simpler way (i.e the traditional way), but I may be wrong.
> Could you briefly describe the "traditional way"?
- in6_pktinfo.ipi6_ifindex takes/returns interface indices only.
- IPV6_MULTICAST_IF, IPV6_JOIN_GROUP, IPV6_LEAVE_GROUP etc. take
interface indices only.
Also, I prefer
- the sin6_scope_id field takes/returns zone indices of the same scope
as the corresponding address specified in the sin6_addr field.
(e.g. if sin6_addr is "fec0::1" or "ff05::a", then the corresponding
sin6_scope_id field MUST be a site ID)
although we can't say this "traditional" yet.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
