I think there is in Australia ... Have a read of my previous emails.
If I was to build a very simple enterprise network between 8 capital cities, with an single ethernet segment in each, and 7 wan links connecting them, if I follow the current site-local definition (geographical boundaries define site local boundaries), I think I'm going to need 8 multi-site routers, and will have a total of 15 different site-local addressing instances. Hmm, I think I'll just ignore the current site-local geographical definition, and number all my links out of the 2^56 bit subnet address space I have in a single site-local fec0::/10 address space. If nothing else, I don't want to pay the extra premium to a router vendor to get a multi-site feature set on all the routers in this network, just to follow a addressing name definition. On the other hand, that additional feature set cost is likely to be cheaper than the cost in explaining why every link in the network is called a "site" to my boss. It could cost me my job. On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 15:36, Keith Moore wrote: > > Oops, sorry, I think I overloaded an already defined term. > > > > Maybe "enterprise local addressing" or something similar that doesn't > > imply a geographical size or location, and indicates the addressing > > uniqueness is only local to the organisation using it. > > there's no need for such addresses. > > Keith > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
