> 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.
No, I think you're the only person reading it the latter way. My expectation is that routers will need to be configured to understand site boundaries. A conservative position is that routers by default should regard their interfaces as belonging to different sites, unless they are configured to be in the same site. Or perhaps other aspects of the router's configuration (eg the network prefixes assigned to different interfaces, or the routing protocols in use) could be used to default the site configuration. Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
