I remember non-transitive on faulty 10Base2. And lack of good multicast in FR and ATM.
There is a lot of IEEE802.11 stuff that works great for large scale WISP and enterprises, but is not available in open source or cheap home routers. At my WLC enabled home, I have most of the 802.11 optimizations on my WiFi infrastructure and on my mobile gear. It has other non-standardized optimizations, such as proxy-ARP. On voting: IP on WiFi: +1 for RFC 5415 & 5416. 0 to -1 for TRILL, SDN and LISP (although these have my interest). RP: +1 for babel. Small, simple, cheap, does what is needed. IMHO there is no choice, IS-IS will not be adopted in the 10$ market. So what I would like to see is CapWap support in OpenWRT, with HNCP for autoconfiguration. And babel as replacement for the proprietary AP mesh protocols, also on enterprise class AP's. Teco > Op 7 aug. 2015, om 08:21 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > >> It is simply unfair from the IETF to use Wi-Fi as if it was Ethernet and >> then complain to IEEE that in fact it is not. > > This is an interesting viewpoint. IETF isn't "using wifi as if it was > Ethernet". The customers who buy Wifi products buy it and run IP over it, > expecting it should work (because that's what the advertising says). IP has > been designed for wired ethernet (and Wifi carries ethernet frames). As far > as I can tell, 802.11 never told the IETF that it wouldn't support multicast > (really). > > I'd say IETF isn't saying "IP works great over Wifi" (it doesn't really make > any claims for any L1 or L2). However, I see producers of Wifi equipment > saying that their products are great for using to connect to the Internet, > which is saying "Wifi is great for IP". > >> IPv6 over Ethernet makes heavy use of multicast over Ethernet, which for the >> lack of a highly scalable Multicast service always ends up broadcasted over >> the whole fabric. >> >> When Wi-Fi is confused with Ethernet and the whole multi link becomes a >> single layer 2 fabric, we create a crisis that will not be solved by >> imputing the responsibility on the other SDO. > > Which is exactly why I said that both SDOs need to do something. However, > since IP was "first" I think that 802.11 should have come to IETF a long time > ago and said that it couldn't do multicast. Basically, what I interpret > you're saying is that Wifi in its current form isn't suited to carry IP the > way IP has been designed, for a long time. That would be news for a lot of > people. > >> My suggestion is to finally recognize that Wi-Fi is not Ethernet, in >> particular from the perspective of multicast, and provide the appropriate L3 >> mechanisms for IPv6 over Wi-Fi, for which the backbone router discussed >> above is one candidate solution. > > It's not only IPv6, but it's also IPv4 (since it uses broadcast, but less of > it). > > But what I hear here is that your opinion is that 802.11 doesn't need to > change, but the IETF needs to change for IP to work over Wifi. I'd really > appreciate some kind of official agreement from each SDOs who should do what. > If the long-term technical solution is that the IETF should change L3 to > basically avoid broadcast and multicast, then that's fine, as long as this is > agreed upon by both parties. > > However, I do think that 802.11 needs to point out to its members that if > they don't implement assured multicast replication, IP doesn't work properly. > Then they can decide what should be done in the short term, because changing > IP will take quite a while. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
