> The NBMA link and all of its attached devices is also
> a separate site,
Fred, can you explain what NBMA technologies you are thinking
of? I think we successfully proved that ATM is not a viable
access technology precisely because it creates the NBMA problem,
so I'm wondering why we are trying again to solve this problem.
As Mark Smith pointed out, the ADSL ISPs have adopted (or rather,
cobbled together) a hub and spoke solution for legacy reasons:
>> PPPoE makes
>> broadband look like high speed dialup, which allowed ISPs to introduce
>> broadband fairly rapidly without having to change their backend
>> authentication/billing systems etc.
But at least that solution is clear.
Incidentally, we have existing terminology for distinguishing a particular
router on a subnet: the 'designated router' in OSPF. As I understand, it's
the only router on the subnet allowed to send Link State Advertisements.
Is your 'authoritative' router comparable to that? In what way does OSPF
not match your problem?
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
