> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Yes, this makes more sense...
That's what it's always been, the "more" is irrelevant here
> I think that this would be a perfectly legal network
> configuration under the current scoped addressing
> architecture rules, and it would result in outside hosts
> being unable to reach the control devices.
Then what was all this noise about restricting SLs to non-connected
networks? This *is* a connected network.
Michel.
-------------------- Global Addresses ----------------><-- SL addr -->
+-----+
| ISP | :
+--+--+ :
! :
+--+---------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| Router A : +--+ Firewall +--+--+ Firewall +--+--+ Router B +---+
+------------+ +----------+ | +----------+ | +----------+ |
: | | |
: +---+--+ +--+---+ +----+----+
: | DFZ | | Host | | Control |
: | Host | +------+ | Device |
: +------+ +---------+
---Site -->:<-------------------------- Site ------------------------->
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
