itojun wrote: > ... > depending on your definition of site border, Microsoft > router can > participate both Microsoft site as well as upstream-ISP site. > > see Miyakawa-san's DSL service plans - CPE participates > to both ISP > site as well as customer site.
Participate in both, but not route SL prefixes between them. This is easy since it can track which interface is appropriate for any given use. > > i still think it necessary to: > - limit nodes from joining more than (including) 2 > sites at the same > time. If it is not capable of tracking which interface is in which site, it should not be able to join more than one at a time. If it can, there is no reason to limit its ability to be connected to. > - document site-border router's behavior in full I agree that it should be documented. The conditions that need specific attention are; the case where there are multiple disconnected SL routing spaces, and the node just happens to be attached to more than one (multi-homed host model); the case where a site-border is also the transition between the IGP & EGP (well understood border model); the case where the site-border is expected to route between different SL address administrations (unless the interconnecting router is also a nat, this amounts to a normal IGP with one address domain under distributed management). Tony > > itojun > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
