Subject: Re: Wrap up and last call: sin6_scope_id semantics

From: "Roy Brabson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:01:20 -0400

On Monday, 08/20/2001 at 11:15 ZE2, Francis Dupont
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    > => I prefer real names than xxxNNN. Can we get both (i.e. a config
file
>    > plus a default translation rule)?
>
>    I do not object to introducing real names, but I'd like to leave that
>    part as implementation dependent, and just define the formal aliases
>    (like "link2") in the scope architecture draft.
>
> => I don't understand your problem there: I prefer fe80::xxxx%eth0 to
> fe80::xxxx%link12, I believe you too...

I also prefer eth0 over link12.  Using the names used to define the zones
(either the default interface names or actual zone definitions) seems to be
more useful than generating a somewhat arbitrary name and displaying that.
How is the user supposed to correlate link12 back to the actual eth0
interface, anyway?  I imagine another external or display could be used,
but this would seem to introduce yet another step for a user to identify
the particular interface/zone in question.

Roy Brabson

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:06:26 +0900

>the particular interface/zone in question.

	I guess textual representation is outside of the scope of the
	discussion.  it is the matter of getaddrinfo/getnameinfo behavior,
	and it is outside of the scope of sin6_scope_id semantics discussion.

itojun

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:25:12 +0900

>>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:01:20 -0400, 
>>>>> "Roy Brabson" <[email-masked]> said:

> the particular interface/zone in question.

When we can assume one-to-one mapping between interfaces and links,
that's true.  However, if two (or more) different interfaces belong
to a single link, using interface names as link IDs would be rather
confusing (we'll lose the uniqueness of the ID, or we'll have to care
about which interface is "primary" in the link".)

As I said in a previous message, I do not necessarily object to using
"names" as an implementation dependent convention.  I just would like
to stick to "link1" or "site5" in the official textual representation
in the scoping architecture draft.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------