| To: | bound@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Bound) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sin6_scope_id |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:09:31 +0300 (MSK) |
| Cc: | sekiya@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, users@xxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200001110056.TAA0000006214@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Jim Bound" at Jan 10, 0 07:56:15 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > Everyone has to support sin6_scope_id. Yes, Sir! Are we in the army now? 8) Let me to cite the only intelligible argument for sin6_scope_id (your one, right?) to show people, who did not listen ipng, style of IPng WG discussions, resulting in such decisions: > The WG wants this done in the socket address. :-) Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: current IPSEC/SKIP implementations?, Richard Guy Briggs |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | ip6 addr removal doesn't remove route, David Jeffery |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sin6_scope_id, Jim Bound |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sin6_scope_id, Yuji Sekiya |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |