Subject: RE: rfc2553bis comments

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:45:36 -0700

> ...  These tend to argue for zone ids, not interface indexes
> (except for link-scoped where they're the same thing).

Implementations today use the same number space for interface indices and
link-scoped zone ids, but they are not necessarily the same thing. One could
number links separately from interfaces.

I'm warming up to Dave's proposal, but I would not invent new zone ids for
all the different multicast scope levels. (Or at least I'd leave this
optional for implementations.) I'd map the multicast scope levels into the
link-local/site-local/global unicast scopes.

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: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:29:00 -0700

>link-local/site-local/global unicast scopes.

I don't think you have to create zone IDs for all multicast scope levels
*nor* do I think you have to "map" those levels into the unicast levels.
Rather, you only need zone IDs for those scopes for which you are a
boundary (or in other words, only for those zones for which you are
attached to more than one of the same scope).  Whenever dealing with an
address (multicast or unicast) of a scope for which you are not a boundary,
the appropriate zone is unambiguous (all your interfaces belong to a single
zone of that scope), so you can just use the "unspecified" (e.g., zero
valued) zone id in the sin6_scope_id that accompanies that address.

Steve