In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Elz writes:
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:08:43 -0800
> From: Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <v04220802b6e1c6d1bdbb@[10.83.97.214]>
>
> | I have a hunch that you, and probably many others, will still find this
> | description less than satisfying, preferring a simple, concrete rule for
> | defining a site, but perhaps you can at least get a glimmer of the
> | general notion that has been mostly buried in my mind and inadequately
> | documented so far.
>
>I find it less than satisfying, but not for that reason, in fact, for
>exactly the opposite reason, that definition is far too precise.
>
>A site should be whatever I want it to be. About the only requirement
>should be that it is internally connected (somehow, including using tunnels).
>
>No more than that is needed - it is just a collection of nodes that the
>administrator defines are a site, and then configures the routers at the
>borders of the collection of nodes to mark them as site boundary routers.
Yah. I tend to equate "site" with "AS".
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
