Re: IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-22 00:35, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Andrews" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Marc Lampo" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "'Brian Haberman'" <[e-mail]>; "'Bob
> Hinden'" <[e-mail]>; "'Arifumi Matsumoto'" <[e-mail]>; "'Dave
> Thaler'" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:04 PM
>> In message <006e01cd0668$898f0770$9cad1650$@[e-mail]>, "Marc Lampo"
> writes:
>>> I understand what you are writing, but is this the right way ?
>> Yes.  It was always intended that this be updatable network wide.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-opt-09
>>
>>> The address selection table is, as far as I understand,
>>> statically defined - not dynamically configurable (SLAAC or DHCPv6).
>>> So, the suggestion is to adapt the table on every node of
>>> the organisation.
>> Yep.  DHCP does this sort of thing very well.
> 
> I note that the I-D referenced above allocates 32 bit for the zone index which
> will suit a few implementations and not suit many, unless the intention is to
> use
> the SNMP ifIndex and map from that to the string used by such implementations.

Of course that is how it works. The socket API uses a uint32_t for
the zone index; only the user interface uses a string. It seems appropriate
to use the uint32_t also in the MIB and the DHCP option.

We already covered this on another thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15424.html

I agree this should be made very clear in the text.

   Brian

> 
> Hopefully, 6man will be invited to review this as and when it progresses,
> otherwise it will have to be at IETF Last Call:-(
> 
> Tom Petch
> <snip>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>