>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:29:30 -0400,
>>>>> "Roy Brabson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The diagram which follows shows, as a default, what is described above:
> that two interfaces on a single link are, by default, given unique
> link-local scope IDs. This doesn't address an automatic way to learn about
> a link-local or site-local zone, but then again any such mechanism can be
> made to include the appropriate zone name at the same time it configures
> the zone.
Correct, but the draft does not recommend nor suggest to introduce
such mechanism. There is no reason to reject it, but there is no
reason to force it. Anyway, I guess the point is the next discussion
below:
> The textual representation is more readable, but I don't find it
> substantially more useful. It still doesn't help anyone understand which
> site or which link is being used. How does someone using a zone such as
> "site1" have any idea which zone the packet will be sent, or which
> interfaces are defined to be within that zone?
As I have repeatedly said, the textual representation like "site1" is
as unusable as numeric identifiers. It's just to improve readability,
and the draft does not reject using more intuitive "names"; the draft
does just not specify the concrete definition of names, which I think
is overspecification in an architecture draft.
> The "names" used to configure zones is going to be platform-unique. I
> guess I'd just prefer to see the values used by and returned from the DNS
> resolver incorporate those names vs. something like "link1" or "site1". By
> default, for link-local this is the interface name.
So I guess we should treat this issue in a related API discussion.
I'd like to propose the following approach:
- the scoping architecture draft only defines the numerical zone IDs
and their aliases for readability (like "site1")
- the scoping architecture draft does NOT define the zone "names", but
mentions that implementation can use intuitive names in the textual
representation, and that interface names can be used as
interface/link/subnet zone IDs by default.
- write a separate informational document, which talks about the API
of the scoping issues, including possible representation of names,
and mapping of numerical identifiers and names.
Is this okay for you?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
