Subject: Textual Address Change for Scope-IDs

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:43:08 -0500

Folks,

I strongly object to the idea of changing in6_addr to contain the
scope-ID as an additional character.  This should not be confused with
Roberts proposal of adding scope-id in SLA or such part of an IPv6
address, which I think is a very good idea.  

I object to be clear to stuff like:

   SITEAfec0::2 (where fec0 starts the address)

We should use the companion field defined for this called sin6_scope_ID.
To hold the scope-id.

I have heard from several developers in other discussions this is a bad
idea.  

We need to discuss the merits of this and the drawbacks.

I see no merits.

Drawbacks:
 1. Pollutes the IPv6 address
 2. Causes changes to API functions that use addresses and in XNET
 3. Adds no value to the issue of resolving scope-ids.
 4. Users can easily add scope-id to sys cmds like ifconfig
 5. Lots of others but I will stop for now.

Comments either way please, but we need to discuss this as its own
thread.

thanks
/jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:17:33 -0800

Dear IPv6 specialists,

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Mr.Jim Bound <[email-masked]> writes:

>scope-ID as an additional character.  

If you mention about Jinmei-Onoe's draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt,
I think it does not propose such a thing.
But it says just that

    "Let's unify scoped address expressions for commands and their results. 
    The proposal is 'sockaddr_in6 <delimiter> sin6_scope_id'". 

That's all.

As you mentioned,

> 4. Users can easily add scope-id to sys cmds like ifconfig

Yes, I think so too. But, still it's very inconvinient if command parameters
and return values use different expressions for that, isn't it ?

We should employ one unique notation to express scoped addresses in 

	results of "netstat -rn", 
	command line parameters of telnet, ftp, route, ......,
	not just only for UNIX like environments but router configurations,
	SMTP (maybe).....
	and so on. 

to make our operations EASY. 

So, Mr.Bound, I think you could agree with that idea. 
I really hope that everyone agrees with this point, too.

Regards,

Shin MIYAKAWA,	Ph.D
Research Lead, Internet Technologies
NTT Multimedia Communications Laboratories
PaloAlto, CA, USA

P.S.

As a staff belongs to one of ISPs who are seriously considering about IPv6,
I will strongly recommend to take care about these things (using some unified
expression) when our BUSINESS sectors ask me to comment about PURCHASING
IPv6 equipments.

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:59:15 -0500

hi shin,

no I was not referring to the draft.  I was referring to conversations I
heard and some mail during the discussion of the draft.

I agree with you sent me too.

thanks
/jim

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:59:43 +0100

Jim, I agree with Itojun nearly at 100% because we have a common
problem and we are still looking for the same kind of solutions
(for instance I never like to embedded scope idea but now KAME
people (users of this since) shout this is not a good idea then
I can add more...).
I'll try to find details in my 10 day mail buffer where I can say
new things.

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: I have ping and ping6 but it is not an implementation choice,
just laziness (:-)...