jak>> The other options being, what? I think it might be useful to
enumerate
them so that we can get an idea of what historical precedent is
here.
The other main option is that there's just one interface (for the shared
media in question) on the router, and that interface has multiple onlink
prefixes. This is the model described in section 6.2 of RFC2461, where
the AdvPrefixList variable is the list of prefixes onlink to the same
interface.
-Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:46 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; Julien Laganier; INT Area
> Cc: NetLMM WG
> Subject: Re: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and
broadcast
> domain
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Julien Laganier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "INT Area" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "NetLMM WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:39 PM
> Subject: RE: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and
broadcast
> domain
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:26 PM
> > To: Dave Thaler; Julien Laganier; INT Area
> > Cc: NetLMM WG
> > Subject: Re: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and
> broadcast
> > domain
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > RFC 1812 Section 2.2.5.1 defines the case where multiple subnets are
> > associated with a single interface of a router thusly:
> >
> > "The inventors of the subnet mechanism presumed that each piece
of
> an
> > organization's network would have only a single subnet number.
In
> > practice, it has often proven necessary or useful to have several
> > subnets share a single physical cable.
>
> Yes the last sentence above is what we mean by multiple subnets on a
> single link.
>
> > For this reason, routers
> > should be capable of configuring multiple subnets on the same
> > physical interfaces, and treat them (from a routing or forwarding
> > perspective) as though they were distinct physical interfaces."
>
> The "treat them as though they were distinct interfaces" is just one
way
> to implement multiple subnets on a single link, but it is not the only
> way or necessarily even the recommended way. The sentence is just
> saying it should be a configurable option to be able to do it that
way.
>
> jak>> The other options being, what? I think it might be useful to
> enumerate
> them so that we can get an idea of what historical precedent is here.
>
> jak>> One other option is I think PPP, which Bernard has already
> mentioned,
> with PPPoE being the choice for Ethernet links. Are there any others
> (anybody else know)?
>
> jak
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
