> My take is that the two possible router configs for site locals is > > 1. All interfaces are in the same site > 2. All interfaces are in unique sites > > Margaret's proposal that the default behavior is a node's > interfaces are in 1 site results in case 1. For a router, a > safer config may be 2. That would strictly limit the outward > flow of site local addresses.
I like the idea the hosts default to all interfaces in one site, and routers default to each interface is in a different site. > This difference in behavior for hosts and routers leads to > some interesting issues. One big one is how the site-local > zone ids are setup and potentially changed when a host > becomes a router or vice versa. This is a good question but a) it seems surmountable and b) I don't think the answer needs to be standardized, since changing on the fly between router & host behavior is not standardized. For example suppose that in the absence of configuration, host interfaces use the site id 1. When a host interface is changed to become a router interface, if it has site id 1 then it automatically changes to a new unused site id (eg, one larger than the largest currently in use on the node). When a router interface is changed to a host interface, you leave the site id alone (unless the operator also changes it explicitly of course). Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
