Tony,

>> >>    - Site-local boundaries need to be at routing area
>> >>            or AS boundaries (not convenient).
>> > 
>> > 
>> > This is bogus nonsense.
>> 
>> Your answer does not really deserve a response.  You're guilty of the 
>> very thing you accuse Margaret of.  I'm curious as to how you 
>> would draw 
>> the boundaries.

> Is it really necessary to point out that aligning a site-local boundary
> with an existing routing boundary (AS or Area) that the network manager
> has established is *extremely* convenient? Those boundaries exists for
> operational reasons of filtering routing information. SL is about a
> well-known prefix for routing filters, ergo aligning SL with an area or
> AS border is the natural thing to do. Claiming otherwise only serves to
> distribute FUD.

Hmmm... I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding the reason for areas
and AS'es. They exist to ensure scalability of the routing protocols
by reducing the number of direct neighbors and network nodes within
the visible part of network topology routers need to work with, amount
of state routers have to maintain and the level of activity they have
to deal with (just to mention a few, there's more to that). Filtering
of routing information is definitely not the driving factor for those
boundaries. It will be interesting for you to know that it is really
rare when route filtering is done between areas within an OSPF domain,
or between member AS'es within a BGP confed.

As far as boundary placement is concerned, adding sites to routing,
though possible, would add another dimension of complexity to network
operations--requirements driving the placement of site boundaries may
be conflicting with those driving normal area/domain boundaries, for
example.

Alex

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to