Subject: RE: Comments on 2292bis (Adv. API)

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:27:17 -0700

> struct sockaddr_in6 sa1, sa2;
> sa1.sin6_scope_id = 1;
> sa1.sin6_addr = fe80::1;
> sa2.sin6_scope_id = 2;
> sa2.sin6_addr = fe80::2;
> bind(sa1);
> sendto(sa2);

I would expect (or at least allow) an error.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:09:28 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:27:17 -0700, 
>>>>> Richard Draves <[email-masked]> said:

> I would expect (or at least allow) an error.

Yes, I think an error would be reasonable. But the behavior that
Francis' said in his mail seems to just allow the node to send a
packet with the source address fe80::1(scope 1) to the interface whose
scope id is 2.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:48:38 +0200

=> precedence and conflict resolution are two different things: if all kinds
of conflict give an error then precedence is no more needed...
I believe we need both: in some case (for instance IPV6_PKTINFO) some
precedence should be applied, in other cases (like the bind() then send() one)
an error is the best answer.

[email-masked]