netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sin6_scope_id (Re: SIOCGIFCONF and IPv6 addresses)

To: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: sin6_scope_id (Re: SIOCGIFCONF and IPv6 addresses)
From: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:54:47 -0800
Cc: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, misiek@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: In your message of "Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:35 +0300 (MSK)" <200002231214.PAA00735@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Information Sciences Institute
References: <20000223083608A.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200002231214.PAA00735@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.2.15 (More Than Words) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 8) (Bryce Canyon) (sparc-sun-solaris2.7)
At Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:35 +0300 (MSK),
kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hello,

Alexey, we understand your opinion. I think it is reasonable.

Actually, Yoshfuji's patch is just a conceputal one.
We have recognizeed that we have need to improve it in order to
adopt in Linux kernel. I describe our concepts regarding
sin6_scope_id below.

        - In each socket connection, we try to keep the status of
          whether sin6_socpe_id is or not, in order to keep
          backward compatibility at binary level.

        - We have recognized that it is a problem that we treat
          sin6_scope_id as ifindex in case of multicast.

        - We suggest the idea we can switch the behaviour of
          sin6_scope_id using /proc/net/ipv6_scope_id or someting.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. I think we need more
discussion and improvement. We are serious to introduce sin6_scope_id.

I hope you understand our point of view...
Regards.

-- 
SEKIYA Yuji     USC/ISI  Computer Networks Division 7
<sekiya@xxxxxxx / sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx / sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>