Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 16:29, Keith Moore wrote:
however I'd be really surprised if SL filtering added to the
cost of a router.
You're probably right.
On the other hand, as per Ole Troan's earlier email (which I agree
with), I don't think all router implementations should be required to
support multi-sites.
I think Ole's comments apply to specialized routers. If you are
marketing a general purpose router, you almost have to put in
support since you don't know how or where they will be deployed.
As soon as a feature is optional, it can be charged more for, and in my
example, following the site-local philosophy, I would have to pay for
it.
That depends based on my comment above.
BTW, I'm not sure if you miss-phrased, but we are talking about full
multi-site forwarding support (ie zones etc), not just SL filtering.
I break the problem down into two parts, pieces that already exist
and pieces that really don't.
Some of the forwarding rules for site-locals look alot like the
ingress filtering that is done today to address spoofing. So,
the machinery exists for that. As Ole pointed out in another
message, there is some checking that is done for LL that can be
re-used for SLs. The difference though is that the LL check
doesn't require retrieving an index in order to check.
What doesn't really exist is the filtering of prefixes being put
into route exchange messages based on an arbitrary index (zone
id).
The other big issue is how the routing table(s) are built and
managed. That can be a big hit on memory/storage space.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
