Subject: RE: Scope ID secret Cabal (minutes)

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:50:24 -0800

> One question is whether we need a clone for link ids as well.
> (It is becoming more and more common to have multiple NICs connected
> to a subnet for high availability and load balancing.)

A related thought... Whenever Steve would point out that interface ids and
link ids are different things, I would think - absolutely correct in
principle but a moot distinction for our implementation. But recently we
thought of something that might make the distinction more interesting. If
you implement home addresses for mobility by assigning the home address to a
pseudo-interface, you want the pseudo-interface to belong to the original
home subnet link.

For example suppose you have ethernet interface id#1 attached to a home link
id#2. Then unplug the ethernet and plug it in somewhere else. Now ethernet
interface id#1 is connected to link id#3 and there is a pseudo-interface
id#4 attached to the home link id#2. Then if a someone is using the address
2/fe80::1 (fe80::1 with link id#2), the right thing can happen whether the
node is at home or moves away.

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: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:52:39 -0800 (PST)

> node is at home or moves away.

Sure. But I though the Mobile Ipv6 spec states that link local packets
should/must not be tunneled to/from the mobile node when it is away
from home.

   Erik