> > | I was wondering if this has been mentioned before. > > It has been discussed before. It is a truly wonderful idea... > > If it could be done, there'd be no adverse effects, the problem > is how the extra identifier gets distributed to the nodes. Your > average system has no idea what its vlan-id might happen to be (not > that there's any reason to restrict the usage that way).
it doesn't matter i reckon. I mean from the other nodes point of view it's just another link-local address ( well, as long as when it determines what the address type is, it matches for fe80::/10 and not fe80::/64 > > It cannot use the net to discover the id, as at the stage it is > configuring its link local address, it has no way to use the net. > > The earlier suggestion kept the 0's in the format on the wire, and > just used the id for local internal identification (within the node). > That means that each node cinvent its own numbers, they don't need to > be consistent with those chosen by anyone else. But having the > address the node uses different from the one passed to other nodes > complicates any protocol that actually uses the value of the address > (the node has to know to use the address with the ID in it for addressing, > but the address with 0's replacing the ID for all other purposes, which is > messy). > > In any case, this suggestion went nowhere. as long as the node continues to use,e.g. fe80::1:2c0:dfff:fe07:6d62 for the specified interface i don't see why this would be a problem to other nodes. Only when implementations start matching to the /64 boundary instead of the /10 boundary this may be a problem. using the format fe80::<id>:<interface-id>, would allow a single link-local addresses to be shared among various interfaces on the node and will also enable the node to determine which interface a destination link-local address is going out of. Also, why not fe80:<zone-id>::<interface-id> instead of address%<zone-id>? Then you wouldn't have problems described in draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-03.txt for URLs but then again it would be difficult to say fe80:eth0::<interface-id> or fe80:vlan0::<interface-id> unless you can map eth0 and vlan0 or vlan1 to a standardised numerical index or value. Regards, Sean -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
