Tailed Cc: list a bit. On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >You may ask: how is this possible? we don't have any site-border > >discovery mechanisms? > > We don't need an autoconfiguration mechanism for every feature of > the IPv6 specifications. If routers can be configured to act as > site-border routers (and not forward site-local addresses outside > of the site), this is all that the spec requires. It doesn't > require that the configuration be automatic, or even simple to > configure.
People have read it differently, that's for sure. Some read it (many): "if I configure a site here, I must also block site-locals from spreading out or false site-locals coming in" Some others read it: "if I use site-locals here, my upstream router will block the site-local addresses from spreading out and prevent anyone from spoofing site-locals to my site" The latter is how I read it must be implemented -- and reading Microsoft's implementation and the reason they're using SL *strongly* suggests they also have read it that way. There are very probably many others. The paragraph is very unclear at best, extremely dangerous at worst. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
