Ted Lemon wrote:
> If it turns out that there is some performance benefit to making a
> port-to-port, point-to-point link for the router pair, then we can do that
> adaptively. That’s an optimization: it need not be where we start, and
indeed
> back when we were initially
Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router
should
>> collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone.
>> I can't find that text right now. Did
On Dec 13, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> In testing, we have found a device that does not put it's 5-"LAN" ports into
>> a bridge. That's probably a missing configuration, but in the meantime, we
>> have an
Gert Doering wrote on 13/12/2019 18:26:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router should
collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone.
I can't find that text right now. Did
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router should
> collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone.
> I can't find that text right now. Did it go away?
>
> In testing, we have
I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router should
collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone.
I can't find that text right now. Did it go away?
In testing, we have found a device that does not put it's 5-"LAN" ports into
a bridge. That's probably
