In message <[email protected]> Joe Touch writes: > Hi, Curtis, > > On 10/19/2011 8:50 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > ... > > We want to assume that *all* AP are configured as routers except the > > legacy ones that want to be a dumb bridge with NAT to one port. > > AFAICT, you want to assume that: > > - all AP routers are configured as per homenet > > - all other APs are bridges only > > I.e., if IP routing is supported then homenet is supported. > > I would prefer if that were true, but I don't think it's a reasonable > assumption to make in an home environment, because...
Possible confusion here due to overload of the word "configured". All AP routers which are capable as per homenet are zero config routers out of the box. Hope that all legcacy stuff is bridges only, but recognized that some may insist on trying to NAT on one port. Note that some product is so stupid as to always announce default route to the "LAN side", even with nothing connected on the uplink port (and then blackhole the traffic) and won't let a default route be configured or accepted by a routing protocol on any port except the designated uplink. Being backward compatible with anything that stupid may not be possible. Grandma may have to toss that one in the recycle bin. > >>> On BSD and I suspect Linux as well, the default for: > >>> > >>> net.inet.ip.forwarding > >>> net.inet6.ip6.forwarding > >>> > >>> are both zero. > >> > >> Right, but that cannot be the default for a homenet box. > > > > You are mixing the discussion of what we want in routers with what we > > don't want enabled by default in every *legacy* PC, toaster and coffee > > maker. If the coffee maker is a competent IPv6 router with extensions > > to let it autoconfig, then let it be a router. > > I would like to make the same assumption, but we all know that Linux > doesn't listen to the IETF standards. For any Linux parameter, we ought > to assume that it *will* change and we need to deal with it. sysctl is meant for changing it. > Since Linux is used in even dumb APs, that means that "future legacy" > (i.e., non-homenet) APs *will* end up routing at some point, and will > not support homenet. Today's dumb(est) APs that run Linux NAT and bridge or just bridge. If the box says router it does NAT (and is useless IMHO) if its just an AP it bridges to it's (usually one) Ethernet. Some of these NAT boxes run RIP on the "LAN side" and call that routing and enable it by default. Fortunately we can detect this brain damage too. If it speaks RIP only, it's not homenet aware. > We need to deal with that eventuality too. > > Joe Maximizing backwards compatibility to all reasonable devices is clearly one of the biggest challenges. Some devices out there may be just plain too braindead to work with unless the vendor can offer a firmware upgrade and then I can't see Grandma loading a new flash image on her router. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
