It seems, in each case, that the word "RECOMMEND" is far superior to "MUST". If I connect two ports from the same router to the same LAN, I really don't normally want them in different subnets (although from a specific reason I might choose that). MIF tells us that we can enumerate members of the same subnet on different physical media in certain cases. While that is true, to my small mind it's not a great configuration from a routing perspective.
I would indeed RECOMMEND that different ports on the same router be, in the normal case, connected to different subnets, and I would RECOMMEND that a small simple network be kept as small and simple as meets the design requirements of its operator - which in a home network, is the occupants of the home. If the person is trying to (as I do) connect things that don't move, like TVs, using wired media and connect things that do move using wireless, or to route high volume data by different paths than occasional data flows, there exist requirements that probably don't belong in a document like this, but need to be configurable by a clueful operator. I'd stick to RECOMMEND, and make it clear that the recommendation targets the general case. ________________________________________ From: homenet [[email protected]] on behalf of Joel M. Halpern [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:36 AM To: Ted Lemon; Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: [email protected]; Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document 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 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
