How do site-locals work? For a single-sited host, I think the main requirement is draft-ietf-ipv6-default-addr-select-09. For applications that send addresses to correspondents (note this is a small minority of applications) it can get more complicated but it's still not bad - see kre's recent emails about this. I know MS is porting/developing such applications but I'm not involved.
For DNS, I implemented draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes-05 and it works great. Unfortunately since that draft seems to be dead, I think the fall-back for now is that to use site-locals you'll need a two-faced DNS. For a multi-sited host, one additional requirement is that applications should deal with sockaddrs instead of directly with addresses, so that the scope-id is preserved & passed around as needed. Another additional requirement is routing table lookup needs to be cognizant of scoping. We recently implemented some logic to infer when two interfaces are in different sites in many common scenarios (eg when you VPN into an intranet, the VPN interface gets a different site scope-id) but in general manual configuration may be required to specify which interfaces belong to which sites. Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy Brabson [mailto:rbrabson@;us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:32 AM > To: Richard Draves > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Moore; Margaret Wasserman > Subject: RE: Node Requirements Issue 3 > > > > This is craziness. We (I don't mean just MS) have shipping > > implementations that support site-locals. We have operational > > deployments using site-locals. We have applications that work just > > fine with site-locals. > > Could you (or someone else who has this working) publish an ID which > describes how site-locals work? I've seen many postings on various > aspects of site-locals which do not work as currently > defined, from DNS to > routing to applications using site-locals in referrals. > There have been > some proposals on how to address some of these issues, such > as updates to > dynamic routing protocols, but others (like DNS) don't seem > to have any > agreed upon solutions in multi-sited configurations and, > arguably in the > case of DNS, single-sited configurations. Without standards, > or at least > standards-track IDs, its hard to see how site-locals can be viewed as > useful beyond a single-site configuration, with anything > beyond that being > experimental and/or proprietary. > > Roy > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
