Ray and Christophe and others, As the responsible AD for this draft, would you mind forwarding/adding mbo...@ietf.org<mailto:mbo...@ietf.org> to the recipient list? So that authors can read your valuable comments?
Thank you -éric From: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6...@globis.net> Date: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 10:55 To: Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, cerowrt-devel <cerowrt-de...@lists.bufferbloat.net> Subject: Re: [homenet] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt Dave Taht wrote on 23/10/2019 08:56: has anyone here had much chance to review this? Thanks for the prompt. >From a pure Homenet perspective, it reinforces that L3 routing is the correct >solution for segmenting networks where end nodes have different >characteristics. e.g. battery powered or different underlying LAN technology. >And maybe we need a firewall in front of those segments to prevent inbound >scanning traffic overloading the link. Other than that I'm not sure it says much more than "Multicast is great for efficiency, until it isn't". Section 3.2.4: > On a wired network, there is not a huge difference between unicast, multicast > and broadcast traffic. I'd dispute this statement as being overly generic. Anyway, it doesn't add much to the discussion (about wireless). The majority of modern wired Ethernets are actually effectively point to point networks, with multicast and broadcast being emulated in silicon or software. Although maybe having a less visible impact than on wireless, multicast and broadcast can also have some similar operational impact on wired networks (waking nodes unnecessarily, switching via a slow (software) path in the main processor, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583 etc.). -- regards, RayH
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
