Subject: RE: Implementing the architectural principles of Scope-IDs

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:10:57 -0800

Hi Jim,

Okay, sounds like we should discuss the site-local issues in another thread
dedicated to that topic.  And I want to wait for Carl to post his notes
before launching into the API issue full steam.

But your last message proposed an option I hadn't considered before.  Your
interpretation of the proposal Robert Elz's brought back from the dead is
different than mine.  I recall it as *always* storing the scope id
information in the extra bits of the in6_addr, even when it's part of a
sockaddr_in6, and thus not having a separate sin6_scope_id field.  The
protocol stack would be responsible for stripping those bits out before
sending the packets on the wire and adding them when packets come in.

Your suggestion of just using those extra bits when passing things into and
out of the getxx APIs isn't one that I'd heard before.  We didn't discuss
anything like this at the dinner.  Using this idea as a backwards-compatible
hack for dealing with getipnodebyname and getipnodebyaddr is much more
palatable to me.  It's still not clean, but for those wanting clean, we have
getaddrinfo and getnameinfo.

--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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:06:21 -0500

Brian,

yes.  I also don't care if we leave the bits in the address either but I
guess it could affect routability of sitelocal.

I hope to get to the site thread this week and Erik probably does too.
But its pressed as I am off on a mini hunting trip for 3 days before
U.S. Thanksgiving where I hope to get my own turkey the old fashion way.
But I will do my best.

The other thing is I am not as anti-getaddrinfo as I may sound. I just
advised one of our internal engineering teams they may infact want to
use getaddrinfo for their subsystem port to the IPv6 stack which our
group does.  I really don't want to shoot getipnodebyname in the head
unless there is no choice I do think it has its use and purpose. I also
would like to use site-local addresses (if we must --)..) in the most
efficient way.

/jim