Would "provider independent local addressing" be a better name for site local addressing if Tony's model is the most commonly followed ?
I would find that a more descriptive name, as it doesn't suggest that I have to artificially place a boundary on the addressing due to physical geography. Mark. On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 13:36, Brian Haberman wrote: > Tony, > That is a reasonable approach and one that I could live > with. It allows SLs to exist and control is based on tools > that are in wide use today. > > Brian > > Tony Hain wrote: > > The whole discussion about lack of definition of site boundary is bogus, > > and causing a large waste of energy. We don't tell people how to bound > > areas in OSPF, yet we are expected to spell out the universal definition > > of a site. To a first order, the concepts are exactly the same, how much > > information is exposed across administrative borders. > > > > 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. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:owner-ipng@;sunroof.eng.sun.com] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:46 AM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Default site-local behavior for routers > >> > >> > >>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? > >> > >>Brian > >> > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>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] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
