On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd imagine it's easier to do AQM on routed ports instead of switched ports > as well, that's where I can imagine CeroWRT choosing this approach.
I don't think it is easier to do AQM on routed ports. If you do the easy version of AQM for switched ports, that's easy; if you do per-port AQM I think it's equally hard in both cases. The plumbing for the L2 solution would look different than for the L3 solution, and that might make it trickier, though. CeroWRT did this, as far as I understand it, because Dave wanted to shake out cross-subnet issues, not because he felt it was technically preferable in the long run, but perhaps I am misrepresenting his position on the topic. > It's good that we're having this discussions since I seem to not be the only > one thinking that there should be one port per subnet. Indeed, there are two of you! _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
