Thus spake "Roger Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This has been a longstanding problem in the IETF; in fact,
the inability to agree on what "site" means was one of the
reasons SLAs were deprecated. The word "site" is often
abused to mean "administrative domain" rather than "physical location"
due to the ISP-centric nature of the IETF
and RIRs. It's virtually impossible to tell, in any particular
context, which meaning an author meant. We need to stop
using the word entirely...
why does it mather if it is physical site, administrative domain
(eh how can anyone interprent that as a site?!) or a room,
company etc... why not leave that upto those that try to use it?
It matters because there are a lot of protocol and policy documents that
refer to "sites". For instance, one of the current qualifications for
getting an IPv6 LIR allocation require that one have a plan to make
assignments to 200 "sites". Obviously the meaning of that is significantly
changed depending on whether you consider a single company with 200+
locations sharing a single uplink to be one "site" or 200+ "sites".
Also, in the case of SLAs, the utility of the addresses is impacted greatly
by whether you consider a "site" to be a single administrative domain, where
there would not be internal collisions, vs. considering each distinct
location to be a "site", which could lead to hundreds or thousands of
internal collisions.
As far as why "site" has been abused to mean "administrative domain", that
comes from the IETF and RIRs being very ISP-centric, as I said; a single
downstream connection denotes a single "site" regardless of how complex the
internal network behind it is or how many other locations it serves. Or
maybe it doesn't, depending on who's talking; that's the problem.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
