> However, we could take anything that fit in a /48 and call this a site.
> I'm not sure that it would be a good idea...
I think it is a good idea, though it cannot be the _definition_ of the
"site".
IMHO, site-local scope will be used to protect against renumbering,
and for the networks not connected to the Internet.
For this purpose, some connected networks serapated within a single
geographic location _can_ be a <site>. But a <site> is not limited to
be an single location.
Unlike IPv4 usage of a private address, IPv6 site cannot be nested.
So I don't think it is a good idea that you assign a <site> for a too
small piece of networks only for the reason that they are geographically
isolted.
Atsushi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
