An organization should probably start with the assumption that a site boundary is exactly congruent with an OSPF area, but they may choose to restrict it further, or expand it when it makes sense for their network. In any case, the site boundary should never be larger than the IGP scope, so if we are going to talk about defaults, rather than assuming every interface is in a different site, why not assume every EGP/IGP boundary identifies a different site? If we can get past that, maybe we can start talking about area boundaries as a reasonable default.
Actually, there has been some discussion amongst various routing-related folks that has led to the belief that a site must always be congruent with a single OSPF or IS-IS area. This is necessary in order to meet the "convexity" requirement for sites with respect to both site-local and global addressing.
I've had an action item for a while to summarize the thread that led to this conclusion to the IPv6 list, but I haven't gotten to it yet. I'll do so soon. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
