netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sin6_scope_id

To: <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: sin6_scope_id
From: Jim Bound <bound@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:59:34 -0500
Cc: bound@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Bound), sekiya@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, users@xxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:09:31 +0300." <200001111309.QAA10035@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Alexey,

>> Everyone has to support sin6_scope_id.
>
>Yes, Sir! Are we in the army now? 8)

You know I did mean it like that.  Its a req per the IETF.
A platform does not have to implement anything its a matter of what will
be expected and compliant by the market.  I suggest to you that Linux
does not want to be the only platform that does not support scopes.

>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.

There were a long list of reasons the WG wants it.  It is there because
we have link-local and site-local addresses permitted in IPv6.

/jim

:-) 

Alexey

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