Paul, I appreciate the feedback, and I'll take it under serious consideration for my MANET/Autoconf draft. But, I'm not sure anymore that we need to sweat the details of exactly what is a site within the context of these discussions.
Someone pointed out that ([RFC4193], Section 4) provides operational guidelines, and I think the same guidelines would be true for ULA-Cs as they are for ULAs? Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:24 PM > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > so my previous question stands. what's a "site"? > > > > Paraphrasing from the 'draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp' definition > > for "Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)": > > > > site > > a connected network region that comprises routers that > > maintain a routing structure among themselves. A site > > may be as large as an Autonomous System (AS) or as small > > as an individual router, and may also be a subnetwork of a > > larger site. A router (and its downstream-attached links) > > is a "site" unto itself, and a site can therefore also be > > considered a "site-of-sites". > > by this, any connected network region comprising routers that > maintain routing > structure among themselves, up to the size of an autonomous > system but perhaps > as small as a single router, is a "site". nothing is said > (here) about what > else these routers might be attached to, so i assume that there can be > connectivity to other sites or to the dfz but that it's not > required. i take > the term "downstream" to mean "toward less connected sites", > which would be > meaningless if all sites were equally well connected (either > to each other or > to the dfz) but that's not a problem. > > this is a fine high level definition of "site", from what i > can see, but i > have a question... what is the difference between a > site-of-sites made up of > autonomous system sized sites, vs. a site-of-sites made up of > leaf sites? if > a site can be considered a "site of sites", then the > automotive exchange > network or the global internet could be shoehorned into fitting this > definition. i don't think that's the intent, and so, where's > the fine print? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
