> On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:18 PM 2/19/15, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different >>> subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes >>> managing and debugging the network harder, and it means that you can't have >>> a layer two switch anymore. So the question I would ask is not "is there a >>> problem with this," because obviously there is, but rather "is there a >>> benefit to doing it this way." I am curious to know what you think the >>> benefit is. >> >> I am not mandating that each and every device is in its own broadcast >> domain, I am however advocating that we leave the model that has been >> prevalent for 10-15 years at least, ie that a home gateway has a "WAN" port >> and 4 "LAN" ports, and these 4 ports are bridged. I'm saying the typical >> device should have 4-5 "L3" ports. You're then free to connect one of these >> to your L2 switch if you so please. >> >> I would like my router-to-router links to not have a lot of hosts in them if >> I can avoid it. > > +1. > > there are very few shared media around anymore. I don't think I've ever been > connected to a 10base5. > why should the IP subnet model emulate a shared medium, when the physical > topology is a star. > > wireless with security is also a star topology, with a unidirectional > broadcast channel.
If I can extrapolate and oversimplify a bit, now we've gotten to a fundamental problem: how does a random collection of devices, links and ports sort itself by DWIM into a coherent home network? How does a device with 16 ports decide to group ports (0-5, 7, 10), (6, 8, 12-15) and (9, 11) into separate subnets? - Ralph > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
