>>>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:05:15 -0600,
>>>>> "Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> | (By the way Robert, are the ICMP "tell me your
>> | site local addresses" and ICMP "site local source exiting the site" messages
>> | you mention [...]?
>>
>> The former is certainly new.
> No -- draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-07.txt.
Is this really enough? For example, I'm not sure if icmp-name-lookups
works in the following scenario:
Consider a mult-sited node A, that has 3 interfaces from I1 to I3.
I1 and I2 belong to a site X, and I3 belongs to another site Y.
I1| |I2 (site X)
node A
|I3 (site Y)
Let's assume that
- I1 has 1 global address (G). I2 has no site-local addresses.
- I2 has 1 site-local address (S2). I2 has no global addresses.
- I3 has 1 site-local address (S3). I3 has no global addresses.
Now, is it possible for a node B in the site X wants to know the node
A's site-local address(es) within the site X?
If B sends a type 3 node information query with the "A-flag" being set,
A will return both S2 and S3. But B would not able to tell which one
belongs to the site X.
If B sends a type 3 node information query without the "A-flag" being
set and with the Subject Address being G, B will return no site-local
addresses.
If B sends a type 3 node information query without the "A-flag" being
set and with the Subject Address being S2, B will return S2 (and S2
only). This result would be desirable, but is this really meaningful?
IMO, if we care about multi-sited nodes, the icmp-name-lookups spec
should be more scope-aware. For example, we should add another bit
(or change the semantics of the A flag) so that the responder could
return all addresses of a given scope in the same scope of the Subject
Address.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
