Hi,
At least, it is clear that "Site" is a set of links. But is the subset of Site
the Site ? I begin to belive this answer is YES.If else, what do we call that ?
I belive this will be a key of definition of "Site".
I propose definition of "Site" as follows;
I also propose new word "Full-Site".
(Definition of Site)
A set of link "S" is a Site <==>
"N" is a integer set N = { n | n is integer , 0=< n =< 2^16 }.
For the "M" which is subset of N;
There is a one-to-one projection from S to M.
(Definition of Full-Site)
Especially, We call that a Site with M=N is a Full-Site.
I think Full-Site has no reality , but this word is very useful.
Then we will have these theorem,
(Theorem)
1. |M| = |S| i.e. the number of M members is equal to the number of S members.
2. Any subset of Site is Site.
3. Full-Site is Site
These are obvious.
Here is a example.
(Example) There are three links in my network like this;
Link 1 Link 2
-----+---- --+-------
| |
--+---------+---
Link 3
We select projection as follows,
Projection = {
return 0x000a for Link 1
return 0x000b for Link 2
return 0x000c for Link 3
}
This is off-cause one-to-one projection from "S" to "M".
M = { 0x000a, 0x000b, 0x000c } is subset of N
So this "my network" is Site.
If we select subnet ID as follows,
subnet ID = 0x000a for Link 1
subnet ID = 0x000b for Link 2
subnet ID = 0x000c for Link 3
then we can select Site-Local Address and Global Address as follows,
Site-Local Global
Link 1 fec0:0:0:a::/64 BLOB:A:L:a::/64
Link 2 fec0:0:0:b::/64 BLOB:A:L:b::/64
Link 3 fec0:0:0:c::/64 BLOB:A:L:c::/64
(BLOB:A:L::/48 is a prefix from upstream for this site.)
If we add Link 4 with subnet ID = 0x000d , this new "my network"
is also Site. We can add link until Site will became Full-Site.
(Discussion)
Let's think about following topology.
[TLA1] [TLA2]
| |
<Network1>---<Network2>
1) If administrator of Network1 and 2 regards that both Network1 and 2 should
be in same Full-Site,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Projection for numbering of Site-Local Address and Aggregatable Global
Address for Network1 and Network2 are same projection ID(link_name).
Link "s1" in Network1 will be allocated
fec0:0:0:ID(s1)::/64
T:L:A1:ID(s1)::/64
Link "s2" in Network2 will be allocated
fec0:0:0:ID(s2)::/64
T:L:A2:ID(s2)::/64
Note that
It is possible that "s2" will be allocated T:L:A1:ID(s2)::/64.
It is possible that "s1" and "s2" connect with Site-Local address.
2) If administrator of Network1 and 2 regards that Network1 and 2 should be
in different Full-Sites,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Projection for numbering of Site-Local Address and Aggregatable Global
Address for Network1 and Network2 are differnt. Let's call
the projection which is used in Full-Site of Network1 is ID1(link_name)
the projection which is used in Full-Site of Network2 is ID2(link_name)
Link "s1" in Network1 will be allocated
fec0:0:0:ID1(s1)::/64
T:L:A1:ID1(s1)::/64
Link "s2" in Network2 will be allocated
fec0:0:0:ID2(s2)::/64
T:L:A2:ID2(s2)::/64
Note that
It is impossible that "s2" will be allocated T:L:A1:ID1(s2)::/64.
It is impossible that "s1" and "s2" connect with Site-Local address.
Which way administrator will select is depends on policy.
Another way of define "Site" is that we call that only "Full-Site" in
previous definition is "Site", and "Site" in previous is like ,,,
"Sub-Site". But "Full-Site" in prev is too ideal to use it as usual,
I belive we would define that as "Full-Site".
Give me your comment?
----
Tomohide Nagashima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
