Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:57:31 +0900
From: Tomohide Nagashima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| As I also think we should not constrain concept of site. But I belive we
| still need some minimun defenition of site, or need some example that show
| such a set is site or not.
Yes, a minimum definition is needed - that is, a site must be internally
connected. That's all I would say about it. As presently defined sites
cannot overlap, but it isn't at all beyond the realms of possibility that
we might want to change that sometime in the future, so I wouldn't even
include that in the definition.
| I belive that this set is not a site but two sites.
| but if we define site is whatever I want it to be,
| then someone will regard this a set of two networks is a site.
It can be one site, two sites, or N sites, for any value of N >= 0.
Take your diagram, and stick the two nets with the two different NLAs
in one building (in one room perhaps), rather than a long way apart.
Logically the situation is exactly the same, but almost everyone would
consider that to be one site.
On the other hand, the admins of the company may split it into seperate
sites - one for the research dept, one for sales, one for admin, ...
Basically, it should be whatever makes sense for the administrators.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
