>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.
you need to have separate routing table for those, or you need to do
other tricks (like KAME's embedded link-local scope identifier). and
routing protocol interaction is tricky.
>> 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.=20
i'm proposing to limit it because it is (i believe) way too difficult
to support routing protocol instances for multiple sites. for example,
if you get a default route from three sites you are joined to, what
are you going to do? or what if you get 2001:240::/32 from both sides,
what are you going to do?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
