> > 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.
=> Agreed. I haven't seen anyone else interpret it this way. Hesham > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
