On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 04:47, Richard Draves wrote: > > Obviously my last two models don't really fit the idea that > > site-local addressing is to cover a single geographical site. > > Why do you think that site-local addressing is tied to geography in any > way?
A few reasons : 1) because of the name ?! the word "site" in common english has geographical connotations. 2) the explanation in the Scoped Addressing Architecture RFCs / drafts : http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-04.txt -- o Site-local scope, for uniquely identifying interfaces within a single site only. A "site" is, by intent, not rigorously defined, but is typically expected to cover a region of topology that belongs to a single organization and is located within a single geographic location, such as an office, an office complex, or a campus. A personal residence may be treated as a site (for example, when the residence obtains Internet access via a public Internet service provider), or as a part of a site (for example, when the residence obtains Internet access via an employer's or school's site). -- While I appreciate this site definition tries to be a bit vague, combining it with the name of "site" really says (to me at least) that site-local addressing has a geographical limit, maybe up to a radius of 3 kilometers or so. Mark. > > Rich > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
