Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:37:59 +0900
From: JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| IMO, if we care about multi-sited nodes, the icmp-name-lookups spec
| should be more scope-aware.
Yes, if we want to handle that scenario. And it may be a good thing
to add that extra bit of generality anyway.
However, if, in your example, I1 had also had only site local addresses,
then this scheme could not work in the first place. The assumption is
that all nodes have to have global addresses. If we insist upon that,
we may as well also insist that all interfaces on all nodes have global
addresses (to be accurate here, this applies really only to nodes that
are to be the targets of a DNS initiated conversation - nodes that only
ever initiate connections, and never receive any, would not need global
addresses. We should probably ignore that.)
If I2 has a global address (G2), then the node info request using G2
would find the site local (S2). And it may be that that is the desired
result - if there's no site local corresponding to I1 (G) then someone
who wants to communicate with G (ie: I1) probably should be using the
global address (there had to be a reason I1 wasn't issued a site local addr
after all).
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
