Rich, > I do not advocate requiring every host and router implementation to have > multi-site support. I think all that's required for host implementations > is the default address selection rules, and all that's required for > router implementations is to have two modes (either all interfaces are > in the same site so site-locals are treated like globals, or all > interfaces are in different sites so site-locals are filtered). This is > really very little burden for host and router implementations.
Sounds like you're referring here to the case of multilink subnets, as in Dave and Christian's draft. Having multiple interfaces attached to the same site vs. one interface per site is a design consideration we were investigating for MANET applications at SRI shortly prior to my departure 6mos ago, but we didn't come to any firm conclusions. I have been unable to find time to review that draft recently (let's just say I've been off chasing wild geese), but I'm planning to take a look at it today with two design points in mind: - does it scale to 10,000+ nodes? 100,000+ nodes? etc? - does it truly make life easier than multi-homing? Thanks, Fred Templin [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
