On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:24, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > On 03/13/2013 01:55 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>> The reason I bring this up is that I don't understand why a single namespace >>> is "desirable". What are the implications if that is not the case? What >>> assumedly >>> bad thing will happen if that's not the case? What goodness flows if it is? >> If you have devices that need to be addressed outside of the homenet, then >> you have to have a global namespace, and of course that means a single >> namespace. And if you wander to another homenet, and devices are in the >> same namespace, you may wind up turning up your host's (or their neighbor's) >> air conditioning. > > And this is both orthogonal to my concern, as well as worth mentioning in > this section, I think.
Right, so that's the concern that's been aired over both homenets using .sitelocal (or similar). I agree with Mike though that we should say "at least one global name space", as other name spaces may map to the homenet devices/prefixes. Or you may have a homenet that (for example) has rooms with lodgers who may want to use their own name spaces in that part of the homenet. Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
