Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> writes: > I suppose a point to be investigated is that however roaming happens, > unless all packets are flooded to all links, the layer 2 switch always > triggers a routing change, whether at layer 2 or layer 3. > > So it might be worth doing an analysis of the pros and cons of L2 versus L3 > roaming. I know Dave Täht has looked into doing it at L3 at the host, but > that isn’t practical and is in any case out of scope for homenet. What is > easier if it’s done at L2? At L3?
Yeah; off the top of my head: getting the address to distribute is easier at L2 (it's built in to the WiFi handshake), and there's only one of them; but distributing it (them) once you know it may be easier (or more efficient) at L3. Assuming you already have a decent layer 3 routing protocol available, of course (which is why it makes sense to solve it in a homenet context) :) L3 also has the advantage that it can aggregate lots of host routes into a covering prefix, so fewer routes when no one is roaming; but when clients do roam, you mostly have to announce host routes anyway, so in the worst case we get back to "one route per address"... A longer analysis would probably be needed to assess performance in the worst case. -Toke _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
