----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Julien Laganier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "INT Area" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "NetLMM WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and broadcast
domain
-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Dave Thaler; Julien Laganier; INT Area
Cc: NetLMM WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and
broadcast
domain
Dave,
RFC 1812 Section 2.2.5.1 defines the case where multiple subnets are
associated with a single interface of a router thusly:
"The inventors of the subnet mechanism presumed that each piece of
an
organization's network would have only a single subnet number. In
practice, it has often proven necessary or useful to have several
subnets share a single physical cable.
Yes the last sentence above is what we mean by multiple subnets on a
single link.
For this reason, routers
should be capable of configuring multiple subnets on the same
physical interfaces, and treat them (from a routing or forwarding
perspective) as though they were distinct physical interfaces."
The "treat them as though they were distinct interfaces" is just one way
to implement multiple subnets on a single link, but it is not the only
way or necessarily even the recommended way. The sentence is just
saying it should be a configurable option to be able to do it that way.
jak>> The other options being, what? I think it might be useful to enumerate
them so that we can get an idea of what historical precedent is here.
jak>> One other option is I think PPP, which Bernard has already mentioned,
with PPPoE being the choice for Ethernet links. Are there any others
(anybody else know)?
jak
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
