Brian, Am Freitag, 4. April 2003 15:14 schrieb Brian E Carpenter: > What do you do when two occurrences of FEC0::0001/64 exist > within a single routing domain? > > This is the problem created by the current SL definition when > two 'sites' are united by merger or VPN and they both happen > to have a subnet #1. > > We shot ourselves in the foot by creating this problem in the > initial IPv6 addressing architecture.
Do we really have to think about this? Is this an architectural design problem? Is it enough to drop the whole concept? I think it would be enough to come up with a BCP how to subdivide bits 11-48 in an intelligent way to prevent above. There were lots of ideas how this could be done on this list. Christian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
