>>>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:18:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Samita Chakrabarti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The idea is to use both IPV6_PREFER flags in conjunction with corresponding
> AI_PREFER_* flags in getaddrinfo().
> RFC3484 Destination address selection rule #8 ( prefer smaller scope):
> Thus, IPV6_PREFER_DST_SMALLSCOPE is the default setting for a system.
> One example might be that if sender wants to use global destination
> address to talk to an onlink node for which it knows a smaller scope
> address. In that situation, setting LARGESCOPE
> socket option and passing AI flag to getaddrinfo() is recommended.
For which socket are you intending to set the LARGESCOPE socket
option? Could you show an example code fragment that uses this option
(e.g., containing calls to getaddrinfo(), socket(), and connect() or
sendto())?
> Now, for DST flags, it may be possible to get away with AI_PREFER_* flags,
> but, implementations may vary in implementing getaddrinfo() for collecting
> potential source addresses (RFC3484 section 8).
> Hence for portability and consistency reason, both setsockopt() and AI flags
> are recommended for destination scope.
> From implementation point of view do you think IPV6_PREFER_DST_*SCOPE
> is redundant across all systems ?
I don't know about "all" systems, but I cannot just imagine meaningful
usage for this option. And, if no one can provide concrete useful
usage, I don't think it a good idea to provide such a meaningless
option just for "consistency".
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
