Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:26:55 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> I now think the only real way to solve the problem
> is to change the data types used in the list of
> addresses from in6_addr to either sockaddr_in6 or
> your proposed sockaddr_in6_lite (if I may call it
> that).  Should this just be done, breaking the
> existing API?

I agree that this is the only way to cleanly solve the problem.  Basically,
everything that takes an in_addr today should also take a scope_id along
with it.  A scoped IPv6 address isn't complete without its corresponding
scope id, so this is clearly the correct thing to do.  However, it means
changing a lot of the existing basic API spec, which might not sit well with
some people.  Personally, I'm leaning toward accepting the pain now and
doing it right, rather than be sorry later.

> What about the additional getipnodebyname() flag
> indicating that a scope-id is desired that I
> suggested in my last mail?

That's another option - leave the existing functionality while providing
equivalent scope aware versions either through flags to the existing APIs or
to a new track of parallel APIs.  Of course, this would leave us open to the
criticism that getipnodebyname and friends are already new APIs for IPv6, so
we should specify them correctly, rather than create what are going to
immediately become outdated legacy interfaces.

--Brian

> 
> -- Sam
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Sam Manthorpe, SGI.  tel: (650)933-2856 fax: (650)932-2856  
> [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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:07:32 -0500

Brian,

You have not shipped a product and not even a date when you might.

We have shipped a product and other UNIX vendors are eminant.

Not only does it not sit well it will start a war.

Is it worth it?

I am loading my guns now ----)....

/jim