At Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:07:59 +0300 (MSK),
Hello Alexey !
> > RFC2553 says in section 2.4 that follow
> Linux does not follow this RFC. It complies to previous RFC.
Hmm... OK. I understand YOUR opnion.
YOU don't like the idea of scope_id.
But I DON'T AGREE...
I think many plathomes such as Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
WinNT and other commercial operating systems may support RFC2553.
Even in such situatuon, aren't you willing to support it ?
If Linux kernel don't support it, I think that Linux will become
a peculiar IPv6 implementation...
> IPv4 has the same problems as IPv6 does.
Yes, That's why I think we should improve this problem in IPv6.
> After thinking a bit, you will understand that IPv4 has both link local
> and site local and all the kinds of addresses. The only difference of IPv6
> is returning to brain-dead "classful" addressing, which was rejected
> in IPv4 years ago.
No. In case of IPv6, all interfaces have link-local address(es).
In case of IPv4, if some interfaces have a link-local address
(as you say), each addresses has different network address respectively.
(e.g. eth0 belongs to 192.168.1.0/24 and eth0 belongs to 192.168.2.0/24)
However in IPv6, all interfaces belong to the same network
address (fe80::). So, we must specify an outgoing interface because
kernel can't select outgoing interface automatically when destination
address is link-local.
we will try to make patch for sin6_socpe_id...
SEKIYA Yuji USC/ISI Computer Networks Division 7
<sekiya@xxxxxxx / sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx / sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>