> 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.
I think the idea is that getnameinfo() will attempt to translate the
value in the sin6_scope_id field into a text string. See section 12 in
draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-02.txt. The NI_NUMERICSCOPE flag says
don't bother trying to lookup the zone name (e.g. "fe80::abc%link1"),
just display the numeric form of the sin6_scope_id (e.g. "fe80::abc%1").
[As an aside, NI_NUMERICSCOPE seems like a bit of overkill, I wonder
why we didn't just extend NI_NUMERICHOST to cover the scope id...]
>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.
Did you see this text in the draft, just a few lines below the NI_DGRAM
definition?
2. The NI_DGRAM flag is required for the new AF_INET/AF_INET6 port
numbers (for example, 512-514) that represent different services
for UDP and TCP.
Without the flag, what value do you return for port 512: biff or exec?
- Jack McCann
Compaq Tru64 UNIX Networking
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
