Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:31:32 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| As I tried to point out
| in my previous message, IP doesn't have any business
| messing around with details about how the subnet is
| actually constructed.
I think there's a chasm between uses of the term "subnet" occuring here.
The subnet in the sense that is bring proposed in multi-link-subnets
is something that's being defined by the IP layer - IP has never used the
term in the ISO sense, that's what "link" means.
As I understand it, here a "subnet" is simply "the collection of nodes
that can be addressed using the same prefix" (where that prefix is not
an aggregate of others).
That is, one might define prefix::/64 and address a collection of nodes
out of that prefix, that's the subnet.
Traditional IP has said that the nodes so addressed all have to be
connected to the same link. But that's certainly for the IP layer
to define, it isn't fixed in concrete by someone else.
Whether that traditional definition should be changed or not is the topic
of the multi-link-subnet draft (I think) - and I'm not taking a position
on that here - but we certainly need to make sure that we're all using
the terminology the same way.
kre
ps: there is absolutely no need to have a concept of "subnet local"
addressing, or scope, in order to make any of this work, if making it
work was to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
