Hi Samita,
From: Samita Chakrabarti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > I think specifying IPV6_PREFER_DST_XXX doesn't have any meaning,
> > because the destination address has already been chosen in
> > getaddrinfo().
>
> Are you suggesting to drop all the IP
Hi Keiichi,
> >
> > > One example might be that if sender wants to use global destination
> > > address to talk to an onlink node for which it knows a smaller scope
> > > address. In that situation, setting LARGESCOPE
> > > socket option and passing AI flag to getaddrinfo() is recommended
Hi Samita and Tatsuya,
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:34:51 +0900
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:18:20 -0700 (PDT),
> > Samita Chakrabarti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The idea is to use both IPV6_PREFER flags in conjunction with corresponding
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:18:20 -0700 (PDT),
> Samita Chakrabarti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The idea is to use both IPV6_PREFER flags in conjunction with corresponding
> AI_PREFER_* flags in getaddrinfo().
> RFC3484 Destination address selection rule #8 ( prefer smaller scope):
> Thu
> The third sentence in the abstract appears to be broken:
>
> This document fills that gap by specifying socket level options add new
> flags for the getaddrinfo() API to specify preferences for address
> selection that modify the default
> address selection algorithm.
>
> I think what was int
> >
> > The combination of flag X and not-X is not allowed - only one should be
> > set at one time, becuase one packet has one source address.
>
> After talking to Vlad I now understand this, you're saying these are
> invalid flags to set together:
>
> HOME | COA
> TMP | PUBLIC
>
Hi Keiichi,
NOTE : [ Julien's address change: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> I have one question about the usage of IPV6_PREFER_DST_LARGESCOPE and
> IPV6_PREFER_DST_SMALLSCOPE socket options.
>
> I'm afraid I cannot imagine when I need to use the above socket
> options, since selection of a destinatio
The third sentence in the abstract appears to be broken:
This document fills that gap by specifying socket level options add new
flags for the getaddrinfo() API to specify preferences for address
selection that modify the default
address selection algorithm.
I think what was intended was:
This
Overall comment:
1. The draft talks about setting flag X and flag not-X, but the only
place I see where this can happen is trying to set these together:
IPV6_PREFER_SRC_CGA | IPV6_PREFER_SRC_NONCGA
AI_PREFER_SRC_CGA | AI_PREFER_SRC_NONCGA
Am I missing something? Can I somehow t
Hello Samita,
I have one question about the usage of IPV6_PREFER_DST_LARGESCOPE and
IPV6_PREFER_DST_SMALLSCOPE socket options.
I'm afraid I cannot imagine when I need to use the above socket
options, since selection of a destination address is done by
getaddrinfo() (or by specifying an address ex
> >>
> >>The verification of temporary vs. public, home vs. care-of, CGA vs.
> >>not, are performed by a new function defined for this purpose:
> >>
> >> #include
> >>
> >>Not in6.h?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You mean
>>
>>The verification of temporary vs. public, home vs. care-of, CGA vs.
>>not, are performed by a new function defined for this purpose:
>>
>> #include
>>
>>Not in6.h?
>>
>
>
> You mean ip6.h?
> ip6.h is mainl
Hello Brian:
> > Title : IPv6 Socket API for source address selection
> > Author(s) : E. Nordmark, et al.
> > Filename: draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-03.txt
>
> Hi Samita, Erik, and Julien,
>
> Didn't see this sent to the IPv6 ML, but sending comments
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : IPv6 Socket API for source address selection
Author(s) : E. Nordmark, et al.
Filename: draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-03.txt
Hi Samita, Erik, and Julie
14 matches
Mail list logo
