>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Nordmark <nordm...@cisco.com> writes:
>> Erik,
>>
>> I really don't know how many support calls are just the consumer
>> plugging the computer into the wrong Ethernet port on the NAT box
>> and the uplink on the other port and then not being able to
>> figure out what is wrong. All the cables fit in the connector.
>> It should work!
Erik> It sure would be good to try to find some data on this.
But, for many many years, ISPs did not support having a sharing device.
Not that they do, ISP insist that the box be *their* box, and as that
box is sometimes broken, limited, etc. the customer has to provide their
own. Again, if the ISP is called, it's "not their problem".
Erik> While I can see that we can build the internals of the home
Erik> network with devices without a designated uplink
Erik> (automatically configure prefixes, the routing protocol etc),
Erik> what I don't understand is how the connectivity to the ISP
Erik> would happen.
Erik> How do you see that working? Will each router try the
Erik> protocols it would use against the ISP (PPPOE, DHCP PD, etc)
Erik> on every port? Or on every port where it doesn't find a OSPF
Erik> (or whatever home routing protocol we choose) neighbor? Or
Erik> does the user have to configure the Customer Edge Router to
Erik> say "port eth0 is the WAN port?"
Basically what you suggest.
For Cable and any access link that uses DHCP and Ethernet directly, the
fact that you get a DHCP with a PD is a clue that this is the WAN link.
For DSL using PPPoE (those who pay a bit more can have DSL without
PPPoE), then a username/password is required, and yes, the user has to
configure this.
However. in many cases, this is pre-configured by the ISP, as the
"router" and DSL modem is combined into a single box. Often this also
means that you can't plug it in wrong, as the uplink is an RJ11 rather
than RJ45.
Erik> I don't think arbitrarily stupid way can possibly work, since
Erik> that doesn't ensure that the home network is internally
Erik> connected. If the user connects three routers in the den
Erik> together, but those are not connect to the rest of the house,
Erik> then no protocol we come up with can fix that.
a) That's okay, because the three routers in the Den plugged in that way
won't affect the router in the basement which is doing fine.
b) Actually, the three routers in the Den might see the wifi from the
basement, and might join it.
Erik> Supporting arbitrary topology (as opposed to just trees) is
Erik> good in that it enables redundant internal topologies. But
Erik> getting to a redundant topology requires a deeper knowledge by
Erik> the users than mandating a tree. More rope. Doesn't mean it is
Erik> simpler for the users.
It's not enough to support only a tree. It is way too easy to wind up
with loops without really intending it. My laptop has four interfaces: wired,
wireless, USB ethernet (to mobile phone), and internal bridge to a VM.
Similarily, my phone has three interfaces: USB ethernet, wifi, and 3G.
So my laptop and phone can instantly create two links: wifi and USB.
My phone + AP + laptop can also have a loop via wifi + wired.
I don't need all these links up, but I really do want these devices
smart enough to just bring up connectivity whenever they can.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
pgpdkKZ6mDmjF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
