netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [project6-devel] (fwd) Re: scope id question

To: project6-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [project6-devel] (fwd) Re: scope id question
From: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:19:03 +0200
Cc: Mauro Tortonesi <mauro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200009261850.WAA08684@ms2.inr.ac.ru>; from kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru on Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 10:50:37PM +0400
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009262024440.618-100000@trantor.ferrara.linux.it> <200009261850.WAA08684@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 10:50:37PM +0400, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> > e.g. suppose a user enters:
> > 
> > finger @fe80::EUI64ADDR
> > 
> > how can the finger client connect to that address (in linux)? 
> 
> No doubts, it will fail.
> 
> This address does not define any unique host.

The behavior is the same with KAME I think. A link local address is
only guaranteed to be unique on the link, the application could
perhaps do some tricks, if it sees only one interface besides lo it
could try to use that, or it could go through all the interfaces.
It's impossible to know which interface/link. You have the same
problem on hosts that are on the boundary between sites.

Actually it's reasonable that you have to supply the interface even
when using one of the hosts own link local addresses, there could be
a host on one of the other links with the same address.

There was quite intense discussions on this on the ipng list about
when the DC IETF was, November last year? You might check those, or
perhaps better, look at draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-01.txt and
draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-02.txt.

Stig

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