> So, one of the items that Margaret suggested was some text in > the node requirements doc or the scoped addr arch that states > that nodes default to being in one site. > > However, there has been some mention that people would prefer > different behavior in routers. That is, the stated desire > was that, by default, each interface on a router be in its own > site. > > This suggestion leads to the model where hosts with multiple > interfaces will assume that all its interfaces are in the > same site (e.g. have the same site-local zone id) unless > explicitly configured to have multiple sites. While routers > will default to having a unique site-local zone id for each > interface (thus rendering SLs to link-local behavior) unless > explicitly configured to have multiple interfaces in the > same site. > > This difference in behavior for hosts and routers leads to > some interesting issues. One big one is how the site-local > zone ids are setup and potentially changed when a host > becomes a router or vice versa. > > What are others' opinions on this issue?
I think default behaviour should be that a router treats site-locals just as global addresses, i.e all interfaces in the same site. - site borders need to be configured. - a router connected to multiple sites needs to be configured. we should not require all router implementations to support "multi-site" behaviour. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
