Tony,
That is a reasonable approach and one that I could live
with. It allows SLs to exist and control is based on tools
that are in wide use today.
Brian
Tony Hain wrote:
The whole discussion about lack of definition of site boundary is bogus,
and causing a large waste of energy. We don't tell people how to bound
areas in OSPF, yet we are expected to spell out the universal definition
of a site. To a first order, the concepts are exactly the same, how much
information is exposed across administrative borders.
An organization should probably start with the assumption that a site
boundary is exactly congruent with an OSPF area, but they may choose to
restrict it further, or expand it when it makes sense for their network.
In any case, the site boundary should never be larger than the IGP
scope, so if we are going to talk about defaults, rather than assuming
every interface is in a different site, why not assume every EGP/IGP
boundary identifies a different site? If we can get past that, maybe we
can start talking about area boundaries as a reasonable default.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-ipng@;sunroof.eng.sun.com] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Default site-local behavior for routers
So, one of the items that Margaret suggested was some text in
the node requirements doc or the scoped addr arch that states
that nodes default to being in one site.
However, there has been some mention that people would prefer
different behavior in routers. That is, the stated desire
was that, by default, each interface on a router be in its own site.
This suggestion leads to the model where hosts with multiple
interfaces will assume that all its interfaces are in the
same site (e.g. have the same site-local zone id) unless
explicitly configured to have multiple sites. While routers
will default to having a unique site-local zone id for each
interface (thus rendering SLs to link-local behavior) unless
explicitly configured to have multiple interfaces in the same 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.
What are others' opinions on this issue?
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
