Hello Steve
The way I understand it, NI_NUMERICSCOPE applies to sin6_scope_id the same
way as NI_NUMERICHOST applies to sin6_addr. By specifying NI_NUMERICSCOPE
flag, the conversion of sin6_scope_id to the 'zone[scope] name' will not take
place and a numeric scope id will be returned with the name.
ex: sin6_addr = fe80::1
sin6_scope_id = 1;
return values:
some-name%link = NI_NUMERICSCOPE is not set
some-name%1 = NI_NUMERICSCOPE is set
This flag should not have any effect if the sin6_scope_id is not set.
NI_DGRAM flag is used to distinguish between datagram/UDP and stream/TCP
services.
Since different services may reside on the same port (one UDP and one TCP), it
is necessary when doing a port-to-service mapping to know the transport
protocol.
So, by default getnaminfo() assumes that transport is TCP, but if you specify
NI_DGRAM, it will use UDP to figure out the name for the service.
I am not sure, but I think NI_WITHSCOPEID was never in the draft. It was
proposed
at least on the apifolks list, but not incorporated. I believe BSD and Linux
implement this flag.
-vlad
Steve Hawley wrote:
>
> Some questions have arisen from examination of section 6, the getnameinfo
> sub-section
> of the draft. This sub-section describes flags controlling the actions to
> be taken by the
> function:
>
> - If the flag bit NI_NUMERICSCOPE is set, the numeric form of the
> scope identifier is returned (for example, interface index)
> instead of its name. This flag is ignored if the sa argument is
> not an IPv6 address.
>
> - If the flag bit NI_DGRAM is set, this indicates that the service is
> a datagram service (SOCK_DGRAM). The default behavior is to assume
> that
> the service is a stream service (SOCK_STREAM).
>
> NI_NUMERICSCOPE is confusing. The draft does not mention NI_WITHSCOPEID.
> Earlier
> implementations of getnameinfo contain reference to NI_WITHSCOPEID which
> specifies
> that scope is to be returned. If NI_WITHSCOPEID is specified in flags then
> NI_NUMERICSCOPE
> makes sense. The scope is to be returned in numeric form. In the draft's
> current form,
> NI_NUMERICSCOPE seems to be a vestige, something that should have been
> removed but
> wasn't. At the moment IBM does not plan to include NI_NUMERICSCOPE in our
> implementation
> of getnameinfo. Comments on this interpretation of the draft would be
> appreciated.
>
> Further, can anyone elaborate on the meaning of NI_DGRAM. The draft does
> not provide an
> explanation of what this flag means. Again thanks for any comments.
>
> Steve Hawley
> cs/390 development, IBM
> [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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich Tel: (603) 884-1079
Compaq Computer Corp. Fax: (435) 514-6884
110 Spit Brook Rd ZK03-3/T07
Nashua, NH 03062
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
