Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Some Thought aboutthe AutomaticTunnelAddress

[Rémi Després <remi.despres at free.fr>]

Le 24 sept. 09 à 18:23, Templin, Fred L a écrit :

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: behave-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org] On  
> > Behalf Of Rémi Després
> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:55 AM
> > To: Brian E Carpenter
> > Cc: softwires at ietf.org; eric.burgey at orange-ftgroup.com;  
> > behave at ietf.org; 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, eric.burgey at orange-ftgroup.com 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
> fred.l.templin at boeing.com
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > RD
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave mailing list
> > Behave at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave