[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291

To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:56:24 +0100
Cc: Mibs Mailing List <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10402012054440.20247-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
Mail-followup-to: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, Mibs Mailing List <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10402012054440.20247-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
Reply-to: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 11:44:16PM -0800, C. M. Heard wrote:

[...]
 
> The upshot is that the zone index is not included in a mask defined
> by an <InetAddressType, InetAddress, InetAddressPrefixLength>
> triple.  It follows that such a triple cannot unambiguously
> represent a destination, and so does not serve the needs of the IP
> Forwarding Table MIB.  

I do not yet see the problem - why do you think it is necessary to mask
the zone index? Is it possible to show me a concrete example where the
triple does not work?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
  - From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>

References:
- Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
  - From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>

Prev by Date: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
Next by Date: Re: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
Previous by thread: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
Next by thread: Re: Possible problem with zoned address prefixes in RFC 3291
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread