I sent this to "fun" back in July, it bounced, but I didn't get onto homenet until now. I will read archives now.
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:15:33 -0400 Sender: [email protected] Section 3.2 is the meat, and I think maybe we will violently agree on many points, and mis-understand our objections on others. Let me start then with: Largest Possible Subnets I think that this is an interesting assertion. I find that there has been an over reliance on too-extensive layer-2 stuff, including trying to bridge wired and wireless mechanisms is a result of: - scarcity of IPv4 networks - combined with lack of deployed multicast (and/or too much reliance on broadcast) between subnets. I don't think that IPv6 should continue this "tradition". I believe that L2-bridging should be the exception rather than, as this suggests, the rule. For instance, I would far prefer that my laptop got a prefix (via DHCPv6 PD), and used that for the link over USB (or PAN) to my smartphone. I really don't want it to bridge. My smartphone might (or might not) also have a link on the same wifi, or maybe not. or maybe it has IPv6 via 3G... If everything is bridged, then there are lots of loops possible, while we have STP, I think it's a fail. (I could go on with many more use cases, I suspect that we should) Or, I think that figure 3 is far more likely than figure 1, even in the face of no explicit security requirements to seperate things. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE> then sign the petition.
pgpfUtLWOQjOc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
