> > 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.
Actually no, I was not referring to multilink subnets. I think they are entirely unrelated. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
