Subject: RE: rfc2553bis comments

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:08:59 -0700

Francis Dupont writes:
> => I don't believe we should specify two different interpretations
> but obviously we have to do the choice between:
>  - use interface indexes and make scope IDs not very useful for the
>    receiving side
>  - use traditional (ie as for unicast) scope IDs and make the
sin6_scope_id
>    field nearly useless for emission to destinations to a scope larger
>    than link-local (the only thing I can see is to check interfaces
>    specified by IPV6_MULTICAST_IF are in the right zone)
> I was in favour of the first solution, now I believe the second is
better.

It's not useless on emission, since it's not required to do
IPV6_MULTICAST_IF.
If you don't do IPV6_MULTICAST_IF, the meaning would
be to send via some interface in the set identified by scope_id.

However, when IPV6_MULTICAST_IF is done, the most you can use it for
is a sanity check and fail the send if you try to send out an interace
not in the given scope.

-Dave

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:22:02 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> I believe most of us will disagree...

=> some = one, all, any subset? This needs some clarifications of
the scope is not the link-local one.

=> this is the only useful thing which can be done then I still think
in this case the scope ID is nearly useless...

Regards

[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------