In your previous mail you wrote:
in my opinion, site border routers need to have ability to run
separate entity of RIP/OSPFv3/IS-IS for each site (don't mix them up).
there's no need for protocol modification, since there will be no
interaction between routes in site A and site B.
=> I fully agree : this is the key point. And we already have the answer
for RIP (no) and OSPFv3 (yes).
NEC IX router is the only implementation supporting this, as far as
i know (i'm a bit embarrassed, KAME doesn't handle this - yet).
=> perhaps because you think (like me) that to use site-local addresses
for a connected organization is not a good idea. But we know we won't
get a consensus about this point so considering (mainly on the paper :-)
multi-sited routers is not so absurd...
Thanks
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
