Subject: RE: Textual Address Change for Scope-IDs

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 03:14:04 -0800

Hi Sam,

> Either there's a misunderstanding or I missed
> something.  I'm thinking: ping <site-local-addr>.
> The kernel doesn't know what interface to use so it
> does ND on all of them.  The first reply it gets
> wins.  I don't get the connection with interface
> identifier numbers, but it _is_ late.

Ah, I thought you meant ping <link-local-addr> and not site-local since this
was in the context of doing away with site-local.  In that case, you could
potentially be connected to a bunch of PPP links or tunnels that are more
likely to have low integer numbers as their interface identifiers.  Thus
fe80::1 might be both a common and ambiguous address for a neighbor.

> Don't know about other kernel designs, but in
> bsd based ones like IRIX, `non-trivial' is an
> understatement :-)

Yeah, ours too.  I suspect it's universal.  :-)

> but this list has already been down that path
> [doing away with site-local] ad-nauseum and
> I don't want to start this thread again; the
> decision has been so I apologise for touching
> on the subject again :-)

Agreed.  Let's just drop it.

Thanks,
--Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 15:13:43 -0500

I am not dropping the deprecation of site-local unless the entire space
is made very clear not just for APIs.  I don't want to have to change
the API after we do it next time at least for scope-ids and this issue.

/jim