At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700, Steve Deering wrote: > > >>Here is a suggestion: > >> > >>1) change the wording of the subnet-local definition to say something > >> like: > >> > >> subnet-local scope is given a different and larger value > >> than link-local to enable possible support for subnets > >> that span multiple links. By default, routers assume > >> that subnet scope and link-local scope are equivalent. > > > >I think that such a change is unwarranted if it will mean even > >more delay in the approval and publication of the spec. If you can > >handle it as a Note to the RFC Editor or something like that, then > >fine. However, I have a few problems with your added sentence > >above: > > > > - it's odd to stick that little implementation note there in the > > middle of the scope descriptions
The current text of that paragraph in the addr-arch document introduces an ambiguity, so it seems like a reasonable place to try to resolve that ambiguity. > > - it should refer to nodes, not just routers Fair enough. It's the router behavior that I'm worried about, but your proposed change is both harmless and reasonable. > > - your statement would not necessarily be true for routers that do > > support multi-link subnets -- for the them, the default might be > > *not* to assume that subnet-local and link-local scope are > > equivalent. Since there is as yet no standards track definition of a multi-link subnet, this would amount to adding a normative reference that would block publication of the addr-arch Draft Standard for quite a while. I assume that nobody wants such a thing to happen (I certainly don't). > >Here's an alternative to your sentence which bypasses those problems: > > > > In the normal case of a subnet confined to a single link, > > subnet-scope is equivalent to link-scope. Same problem: in what case is a subnet not confined to a single link, and how do you describe that case without adding a normative reference? > >>2) to the admin-local scope, tweak the wording to say something like: > >> > >> admin-local and all larger scopes must be > >> administratively configured, i.e., they are not > >> automatically derived from physical connectivity or > >> other, non-multicast-related configuration. > > > >I don't object to that changed wording, but neither do I see the > >necessity of it. I think the intention here was to remove the (presumably accidental) implication that configuration for anything smaller than admin-local -could- be derived automatically from physical connectivity. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
