At 12:04 AM +0900 7/18/00, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:39:01 -0700,
> >>>>> Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 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.)
Two reasons:
(a) to allow both interface IDs and link IDs to be used to
identify the zone of a link-local address (for backwards
compatibility with current practice).
(b) for use in in6_pktinfo.ipi6_ifindex, to restrict the set
of outgoing interfaces to a zone less than that implied
by the destination address.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
