Form David Borman;
>> "N" is a integer set N = { n | n is integer , 0=< n =< 2^16 }.
> ~~~~
>Why an upper limit?
> ... N = {n | n is integer, 0=<n }
Upeer limit is needed, because IPv6 address is finite,
and ID for each link in the site is also finite.
Why I select 2^16 for this limitation is with considering
of subnet ID and SITE ID.
I think subnet ID in site-local and SITE ID in global is identical
, which is ID of link in one site.
This number, 16 is for currently definition, I think this could be
changed.
>As long as Site-Local addresses are routable over Link 1, 2 and 3, this
>would be OK for me...
I think so too.
We need to add this for site definition...
>I don't see why we should use 'sub-sites'. From my point, this would be
>quite a stupid move to use sub-sites, it can cause networks to get quite
>messy. So actually, for me, the definition site, would be enough...
What I think important is not sub-sites, but the concept of "Full-Site".
Please forget "sub-site".
With current definition of site, site can inculde site. this is logical
matter. Asuume there is one site that has 100 links. If we pick 10 links
which are routable each. All node in this network is off-cause routable
with site-local address so that network is still site. If we would
define Site with only topological matter , site can include site.
(but off cause, we would not like to add any other definition for Site.)
So, We need to separate two site with another word.
Full-Site is what we can do that.
Full-Site is vertual concept that has 2^16 links in itself.
ISP will allocate prefix not to Site but to Full-Site.
(Because Site is too ambiguous thing to allocate prefix)
----
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
