[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Re: note from the iesg plenary
Erik,
Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > So, I am partly at fault for not getting that text into the architecture
> > draft. My working definition for a convex site is that for any two
> > points within the site, the shortest path between the points never
> > leaves the site.
>
> Brian,
>
> I can see odd cases where using global addresses the traffic would
> indeed leave the site, whereas using site-local address it might not.
> So shouldn't the definition be related to the addresses used?
Correct, it should be in terms of the scope of the addresses being
used.
>
> Or is there a concern related to a global destination (routed on
> a path that goes outside) and a site-local source, which would cause the
> packet to be dropped at the border?
I know that this subject has been discussed several times. I believe
the scenario that Margaret is concerned about is based on this
diagram she posted to IPNG several months ago (correct me if I am
wrong, Margaret):
==========================================================
SITEA
Host1 Host2
| |
______._|_________ ___.______._|_____________
Link1 | | | Link2
| (down) |
| | |
|+-----------------+ |
|| |
============R1========================R3===================
SITEB | |
| |
_____|_________________________|________________
Link3
===========================================================
If Host1 is using site-locals, then Host2 can't be reached and R1
cannot return any info that is very useful to Host1 other than a
Destination Unreachable message. If Host1 uses a global destination
address and a site-local source address, R1 returns a Scope
Exceeded message even though Host2 is in the same site as Host1.
Brian