On 2007-07-13 18:16, Stephen Sprunk wrote: ...
As far as why "site" has been abused to mean "administrative domain", that comes from the IETF and RIRs being very ISP-centric, as I said; a single downstream connection denotes a single "site" regardless of how complex the internal network behind it is or how many other locations it serves. Or maybe it doesn't, depending on who's talking; that's the problem.
I think another reason we've often expanded the meaning of 'site' is because the IETF has never come to grips with the fact that most multi-site companies (in the geographical sense) have intranets that interconnect those sites and are multiply connected to the Internet. Since we don't have an IETF term for such topologies, apart from AS, we confuse ourselves. On 2007-07-13 21:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
I think it is important for the IETF to have clear documentation of the interconnectedness of "sites", /48 prefixes, mobility, and freedom of choice.
We should certainly provide technology that allows freedom of choice, but the IETF can't do more than that.
At least one RIR now allows ISPs to assign shorter /56 prefixes to consumer sites, i.e. family homes and apartments. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it is rare for a family home to turn into an office without significant infrastructure change. But if there is to be a special size for the family home, it too should be the same worldwide. And it too should be documented by the IETF.
Actually the IAB tried (RFC 3177) and the RIRs chose another approach, which is where /56 comes from. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------