>>> A router might (and probably should) be hard-coded not to >>> forward link-local packets, as there is no reason to ever >>> forward them. >>> >>> However, a router that might ever need have multiple >>> interfaces in a single site can't be hard-coded not to >>> forward site-locals. Whether or not they will be forwarded is >>> the result of configuration. >> >>Actually, a router can forward link-locals between interfaces on the >>same link. In particular, a router can forward a packet with link-local >>dest and/or source back out the interface from which it arrived (and >>presumably generate a Redirect too). >> >>If you are implementing link-locals properly, it's really very little >>additional code to support site-locals. At least that's my experience. > > could you comment on routing code? (RIPng, OSPFv3) i still think > it's way too tough to support multi-sited node.
RIPng is relatively simple. link-state protocols require congruent areas and sites. there are some open issues with regards to multicast and PIM I believe. routing protocol support is required in any case for VPNs. site-locals can be used without multi-site support, i.e treated pretty much like globals. multi-sited-ness shouldn't be recommended for other reasons than adding complexity to routers, e.g DNS issues. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
