[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <9E4B7973-D2C4-438C-9BF6-A35B343F2363@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:57:31 -0500
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Linux Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID
Brian-
On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:27:16 -0500
> Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> I recently added some functions to sunrpc.ko that behave like
>>> getnameinfo(AI_NUMERICHOST) does in user space.
>>>
>>> One of the functions, rpc_ntop6(), sticks a scope ID on the end of
>>> link-
>>> and site-local IPv6 addresses. It does not try to map the scope
>>> ID to a
>>> device name.
>>
>> Site-local addresses have been deprecated...
>>
>
> So this means that addresses with those prefixes should be treated
> like
> any other address, right? If so, then I think the rpc_ntop6
> shouldn't be
> affixing scopeid's to site local addresses.
As a final detail, we're trying to understand what is the correct
treatment for site-local addresses. I've looked at RFC 3879. In late-
model Linux kernels, is Jeff's interpretation correct, for application
layer protocols like RPC?
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists