Hi Brian,
Thanks for your quick and helpful response.
>It is not THAT new. The problem with overlapping sites is that there is
>no way to determine which site the address belongs to. Part of the past
>confusion was that all these definitions had been talked about, but
>never documented together.
Well, it's new to me! :-).
Actually, I fell out of the IPv6 discussions around the time that
we began to uncover the issues with overlapping sites -- I pass
my initial implementation and become more involved in management
(corporate management, not network management). I'm just starting
to catch back up on the IPv6 front.
I agree with the restriction, I just wanted to make sure that is was
intentional.
I have another network management related question/issue...
If I understand correctly, a zone-boundary router could use
the same site-local address within more than one site. It
would internally distinguish between these two addresses using
the zone ID of each site.
I think it would be useful for an SNMP manager (or possibly
other applications) within a site-local zone to be able to
determine which zone ID a zone-boundary router is using to
identify the manager's local site. Do we currently have a way
to do this? Is anyone working on something like this?
A possible solution would be a new ICMP message that asks for
the remote host to return the zone ID indicated by the interface
on which the message was received. A message sent to a link-local
address would return a link-level zone ID; a message sent to a
site-local address would return the site-level zone ID.
What do you think?
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
