I based my comments more on the definition of the InetAddress TC found
in RFC 2851. The InetAddressIPv6 definition explicitly defines the
scope identifier as a 4 byte value. My comments about the API came
from the discussions we had in creating RFC 2851.
Regards,
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> paul,
>
> I am confused too. I always thought of it as 16bits?????
> also for the api that is an "identifier" not the site-id. Like le0 for
> interface.
>
> /jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Paul Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday,February 20,2001 11:04 AM
> > To: Brian Haberman
> > Cc: ipng
> > Subject: Re: Wade through the archives (was Re: another renumbering
> > question)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
