"Christian Schild (JOIN Project Team)" wrote: > > 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?
The architecture today specifies ambiguous subnet prefixes. > > 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. But that is not what the addressing architecture describes today, and that is where my problem is, not with some future specification. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
