>
> The definition of what a site ID would be was intentionally undefined.
> That is, a site ID was supposed to be implementation dependent.
> However, we found in developing the APIs and the InetAddress TC that
> we needed something a little more concrete. Now, the site ID is,
> in essence, a 32-bit integer.
Heh! When I first read this last sentence, I thought "I didn't know it was
that clearly defined", went off to RFC2373 to check it out, but once again
found no concept of site ID. So I looked again at your paragraph and saw
that you are talking about the API. I didn't realize that there was a
notion of site ID in the API, so my apologies for using that term
incorrectly. I picked it up from one of Deering's recent messages, not
realizing its specific meaning. (Even having read through some of the
archives, I didn't catch that the term site id refered to a number that
crosses the API.)
[..... time elapsed as I look at the API documents to check up on this ....]
Well, I looket at the latest versions of RFCs 2553 and 2292, and I still
don't see anything about a well-defined 32-bit site id.
RFC2253 says:
"The mapping of sin6_scope_id to an interface or set of interfaces is left
to implementation and future specifications on the subject of site
identifiers."
and RFC2292, in a section labeled "Open issues" says:
"What about site names and site ids? Need for interfaces to map? Requires
that site-prefixes pass name - does name need to use DNS format to handle
character sets?"
So I remain more confused than ever. Could you please tell me where I can
read about 32-bit site IDs, and after I've read up I'll try to address your
comments.
Thanks,
PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
