> I would note that RFC 7368 says that "simple Layer 3 topologies involving as > few subnets as possible are preferred in home networks". I presume this is > reflective of WG agreement. > While it does go on to note that multiple subnets are sometimes needed, > mandating that each physical port on the access router be a distinct subnet > (much less extending such a mandate further in the home) seems to violate > this agreement. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern
+1 Why would we even want to separate these 4 switched ports in the first place ? I know we are L3 people but, this is IMHO, going too far. Don’t kill Ethernet switching. - It works well when you don’t have drastically different throughputs. - It has non-expensive and efficient hardware home-router vendors are used to put into their devices. - Home routers mostly don’t have L3 hardware. They are not able to route at 1Gbps. The goal of introducing L3 routing was to isolate very different link types such as Wifi Vs GigabitEthernet. I know we *did* separate ports in all the homenet demos at bits-n-bites. Maybe this was sending the wrong message. The purpose was to show the principle of introducing routing in the home. I guess next time it will be 2x2 ports instead of 4x1 ports. - Pierre > > On 2/19/15 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sure, ISIS could be made smarter when it comes to this, but it all comes >>> down to what the requirements are. Right now when we started to evaluate >>> routing protocols, people started pitching USP for their perticular >>> favorite, and we found out we weren't even on the same page when it comes >>> to requirements, and even what a homenet looks like. >> >> I think it is you who are not on the same page, not the working group. The >> working group recently published a document describing our goals, RFC 7368. >> Many of the points you have raised as supposed points of disagreement are >> addressed in the document, although I will admit that it is not always >> obvious that they have been addressed. The case of routing over Wifi was >> discussed at length; the text referring to it in the document is here: >> >> Due to the use of a variety of diverse underlying link technologies, >> path selection in a homenet may benefit from being more refined than >> minimising hop count. >> >> Regarding your criticism about people pitching their favorite routing >> protocols, you seem to be doing precisely that, so the criticism seems a bit >> unfair. The responses you have been hearing seem like legitimate attempts >> to address points you have raised on a technical level, not mere advocacy, >> and it is unfortunate that you would suggest otherwise: I haven't actually >> seen you raise any technical points in favor of IS-IS, which you seem to be >> advocating. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >> > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
