Re: Problem with draft-ops-endpoint-mib-05.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Brian Zill writes:

Brian> Well, I disagree.  I think it's rather important from a
Brian> management perspective to understand scoped addresses properly
Brian> and not just treat the scope-id%address pair as a bigger
Brian> address since the scope value has different semantics.

Lets stop the discussion whether an IPv6 address plus scope-identifier
is some sort of an address or not. 

I think the proposed TC is clear what the sematics of the bytes are on
the wire and I expect that managers and agents will be implemented to
do the right thing with it. So lets know fight about whether this is
an address or not.

Juergen> In which document do I find the definition of the other
Juergen> textual representation of scoped IPv6 addresses?

Brian> Well, that's the underlying problem here, there isn't one.  At
Brian> the moment, the two existing IPv6 implementations that I'm
Brian> aware of which fully support scoped addresses use different
Brian> formats.  At the last IETF, one of these was proposed in
Brian> draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt.  This wasn't, uh,
Brian> universally loved, so the authors have been revising the
Brian> format.  The current compromise which I expect to be in the
Brian> next version of the draft is <scope-id>%<address>.

Can you summarize the reasoning why the scope identifier should be in
front of the IPv6 address? Why does <address>%<scope-id> not work?

Brain> But again, until the IPng working agrees to the thing, it's not
Brain> carved in stone.  Thus I find it premature for other group's
Brain> drafts to mention a format.

Perhaps it is a sign that IPng folks need to agree a little bit faster. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>