Ralph Droms <[email protected]> wrote: >> What Mikael is saying is that on homenet devices (not switches) each >> port is treated as a separate network, on the assumption that all of >> the physical ports on the homenet device are likely to connect to >> routers, and that any switched topology would be done using switches >> connected to homenet routers.
> 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?
My claim is that overtime there will be no "switches" in the home or in
futureshop/bestbuy/newegg. They will all be homenet. It's already been a
decade that people buy new "routers" when they should have bought switches,
and then wind up with dualing DHCP servers, or, as we have discussed here
many times: unintended chains of NAT.
But, as for physical ports on homenet devices, in the architecture we say
that those are supposed to be merged as a single l2 domain, and only split up
if there is some (out of band) reason to do that.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
