I have no doubt that if you convinced Radia about this, she could suggest
an IS-IS-TRILL variant that would achieve it.
But I'm not sure I really understand the need for it. There's no shortage
of IPv4 address space in homenets, because they are small and in RFC 1918
space. So if you are
TRILL is not an IP routing protocol. It's a layer 2 bridging protocol more
complicated than the spanning tree, and seems completely unnecessary for
the small size of bridged networks to be expected in homenets.
What might actually be ideal is something that can route both at layer 2
and at
Right now clients don't pick the best one--they just pick one pretty much at
random. But yes, if you have two DHCP servers providing different
information, you need to resolve that. We would have to write a spec to
handle this—it's not handled in the existing protocol.
We need to be
Should the applications be insecure and rely on a firewall?
(Microsoft advocated this in the 1990s and it has stuck to a large
extent). Or should the network be open and the applications secure?
I'm strongly with you on this. The applications should take care of
any security that is
Victor == Victor Kuarsingh victor.kuarsi...@gmail.com
mailto:victor.kuarsi...@gmail.com writes:
Victor These devices (in such operating modes) are however not
Victor likely to participate in a home network (as the gateway
Victor device or a router) and it's very
At various jobs I pulled 10base2 coax, then 10base5 coax, then twisted
pair. [Well someone pulled it, but not me.] Anyone remember vampire
taps in 10base2? What a reliability headache!
Pulled from cable hanging in a plenum in a secure building... Because
there was no way to get cable floor
Russ You need a unique identifier at the equipment level for
Russ anything you intend to auto-configure --autoconfiguring
Russ uniqueness is a very hard, probably impossible, problem on a
Russ global scale. So we need to count on this one thing, no matter
Russ what else
I agree. Since we need to configure unique prefixes to each router in
the home anyway, it should not be any problem to do the same for a
router ID (or even just use an address from the configured prefix as
router ID, which should then be unique). A while ago, there were some
plans in
We would like to get plenty of review and comment.
Rather than dealing with individual edits, I'd rather start with a
general philosophy question. I understand that the IETF thinks NATs are
evil, but I also think there shouldn't be so much emphasis on homenets
are not NAT, in an architecture
What do we do in that rare case where the bottom 32 of the MAC are
duplicated?
Also consider that virtual switches (VMware, XEN, etc.) all pretty much
use the same set of MAC addresses. VMware has a 50: prefix that they
use, XEN has another, and did you know that 10:00:00 (curisously
Can you also say the opposite that rotocols developed for wireless work
equally well also for wired environments ? If so let me ask why do we
need both classes of routing protocols ?
I would argue that the OSPF MANET extensions would work just as well for
IS-IS or OSPF in both wirelss and
In one hand, we want the capability to reach anywhere we're allowed to from
home. OTOH, if anything in my home is reachable from anywhere, we are back
to the firewall paradigm.
Why? You are still back to all the security disadvantages of firewalls - soft
chewy inside, etc. Reachability
12 matches
Mail list logo
