On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 08:11:05AM -0800, Paul Francis wrote:
> When I presented the near-unique stuff in IETF50 yesterday, Deering stated
> from the mike that a site is a location in space (geographical region,
> whatever...I don't remember Steve's exact wording). This had me totally
> baffled---and it isn't fun to be baffled in front of a couple hundred
> people.
Steve's reference notwithstanding, I don't really understand why it helps
to have a site defined in (admittedly vague) geographic terms, as opposed
to referring only to network topology.
Seems to me that the geographic reference just adds confusion, since there
will always be cases where it is perfectly legitimate to consider a network
which spans cities (or countries, or continents) a single site.
The fact that the majority of sites might fit within a single building or
residence only seems relevant if there is some technical reason for
delineating a subnetwork based on geography (and if there is, I'm not
seeing it :)
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
