> On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:09 PM 2/19/15, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> But I think one of the important points for homenet is that many people will >> just buy "internet" devices, not routers and switches. I've been out of the >> loop so I should go back and check the architecture before I say too much >> more ... what is the expectation for grouping ports on homenet devices and >> is there an expectation that people will buy homenet devices and switches >> and know where to use them both? > > As far as I know, this hasn't been discussed that much. From a quick look in > the arch document, there are all kinds of examples. Looking for instance at > 3.2.2.1 we have all kinds of topologies, from router-router links without any > hosts on it, to subnets with 2 hosts on them, to shared networks used to > inerconnect routers. From what I remember and what I can see the document > stating, the solution is supposed to handle all kinds of topologies.
I promise to go back and re-read the architecture document because I'm having trouble matching the architecture we're discussing here with the desired properties and logical architectures we want the homenet devices to self-organize into. >> ..and, of course, if we solve WiFi-wired for DNS-SD, the solution will >> likely work for some small number of subnets. > > What is "small" here? If it works for 2, why wouldn't it work for 50? In theory, sure. In practice, 25x (or maybe 25^2?) things to break. - Ralph > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
