From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: IPv6: presentation format for zero scope ID Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:50:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4B2029A1.5010404@hp.com> References: <4B1DC794.5020406@hp.com> <20091208080331.3eb5ddfa@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <9E4B7973-D2C4-438C-9BF6-A35B343F2363@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Layton , Linux Network Developers To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:15449 "EHLO g1t0028.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758541AbZLIWuh (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:50:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <9E4B7973-D2C4-438C-9BF6-A35B343F2363@oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Chuck, Chuck Lever wrote: >> 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? Not sure if this answers the question, but recent Linux kernels only look at the scope ID for link-local addresses. -Brian