Le 24 sept. 09 à 18:23, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Rémi Després
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:55 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Templin, Fred L
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] Some Thought aboutthe
AutomaticTunnelAddress
Le 18 sept. 09 à 22:59, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
Hi Eric,
On 2009-09-19 02:33, [email protected] wrote:
...
Automatic tunnelling must be limited to a "Site".
If you are referring to ISATAP, that may be a sustainable position.
However, by definition, 6to4 and Teredo involve multiple sites,
for any reasonable definition of site.
... and we can add 6rd (an ISP IP4 network across which IPv6 is
tunneled in 6rd isn't in general considered a "site").
That depends on one's definition of "site".
Agreed.
Only if there would be an agreed definition of site would it be
possible to be sure what Eric's sentence means, and to then formally
agree or disagree with it.
I would consider
the ISP network as a site that contains other sites (i.e.,
recursively-nested sites-within-sites).
In my understanding, the original meaning of site (now deprecated but
still present in many minds) was close to "customer site", and in any
case not recursive.
"Domain" seems to me more intuitive than "site" for recursive or
hierarchical entities (routing domains, administrative domains etc.)
Regards,
RD
In
Fred
[email protected]
Regards,
RD
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
