Margaret Wasserman wrote:
You're probably right.
On the other hand, as per Ole Troan's earlier email (which I agree
with), I don't think all router implementations should be required to
support multi-sites.
I think Ole's comments apply to specialized routers. If you are
marketing a general purpose router, you almost have to put in
support since you don't know how or where they will be deployed.
Not necessarily. Even if we go to the trouble of fully defining
how site-local address will work, it is still possible that the
market will decide not to support them. If no one builds SBRs,
no one will have effective site borders.
I agree that could be a big issue. We can't make vendors put
stuff in their boxes and we can't mandate how operators deploy
technology. So do we only give them enough rope to make a
noose or do we give them enough to use constructively?
Are there any commercial routers today that include SBR support?
None that I know of.
Who has an implementation of an SBR that includes routing protocols?
Brian, I know you wrote one with RIPng. Are there others? I'd
be very interested in hearing about implementation experiences.
I started to do one for OSPF, but ran out of time.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
