> But this isn't exactly what I'd call "mainstream" - there > isn't a hell of a lot of either IPv6 or multicast use today, > so I imagine that the multicast IPv6 use is an even > smaller set.
It's basically the same interface for IPv4 multicast applications, except the kernel derives the interface index using the address that's provided by IP_MULTICAST_IF. > That said, there should be a comment added to ip6(7p) > for IPV6_MULTICAST_IF, mentioning that the interface > index for an interface can change and if an application > is interested in this event, it should be on the lookout > with a routing socket. I'd much rather just admonish people against changing the interface index in the first place, since there's really no reason to do it -- and indeed, AFAIK, no one does. So, again, I think all of this is a non-issue. > See 6430864. As per above, I think this is hopeless approach; there are simply too many ways that applications interact with interface indexes -- requiring that all applications that use interface indexes monitor a routing socket to stay abreast of changes is untenable. This whole thing seems like a "Doctor, it hurts when I do that" problem, and I think the answer is simply "don't do that". -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
