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.
This works pretty well to bound the problem for routing protocols and routers.
I'm not sure that it does much, though, to address the issues that site-locals raise for transport protocols, applications, DNS and management protocols. Am I missing something? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
