On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 13:13, Brian Haberman wrote: > > > Tony Hain wrote: > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > >>... > >>On a related topic, if I was to stuff up my site local > >>filters at the edge of my site, would my network then become > >>part of my ISPs site local network ? > > > > > > You would both have to make an error to get the two IGPs tied together. > > > > > >>In the proposed > >>site-local models, are sites adjacent, or are they separated > >>by segments that only have a global address assignments (eg > >>the BGP AS model vs the OSPF area model) ? > > > > > > I remember this discussion a few months back, but I don't remember the > > conclusion. Maybe Ole does. > > The following is a proposal that was discussed amongst the > scoped addr arch authors and the ADs. This model would address > the issue of having adjacent sites quite nicely. > > -- -- > --| |-----------| |-- > -- -- > > <--site 1--> <-dummy site-> <-- site 2 --> > > Brian
Thanks Brian, that make sense, and clears up my concerns about a single router being the site-local security device for both the provider and the customer. Sorry if I'm asking dumb questions, I'm just thinking about how I might use site local addressing if I was to build an Australia wide IPv6 based enterprise network, interconnecting the main capital cities. As an example, I can see three different ways I could site-local address the 8 capital cities we have down here (for those who may not be aware, we have something like at least 500 kilometers between capital cities down here) : * site-local boundary at the edge of each city. wan links between cities would be treated as dummy sites as per your example above. * delete the dummy sites in the previous model, and extend the site-local boundary of one of the main sites out to the edge of all the other sites eg the Sydney site local addressing would finish at the edge of the Melbourne, Adelaide etc site local boundary * with 54 bits of subnet address space available in the site-local fec0::/10 address space, it would be very tempting to just treat the whole of Australia as one big site, and avoid site boundary routing configuration issues completely. Obviously my last two models don't really fit the idea that site-local addressing is to cover a single geographical site. Are there any documents / drafts / email threads that discuss various possible site local addressing / boundary models I can have a read of ? Thanks, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
