In message <7d42549b-0ec1-463e-8e62-765c295a2...@fugue.com> Ted Lemon writes: > On Oct 13, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > And I responded to that in the same email and you trimmed that part of > > the response in this email. > > The problem has to do with customer-owned devices and > customer-neighbor-owned devices forming networks together. It's got > nothing to do with the ISP. Chances are, the ISP link is the one > thing that won't be gotten wrong here, because only one device you own > will be connected to it (at least in typical networks today).
And therefore risk there is mostly theft of service as I have already pointed out. A WiFi AP will not connect to another AP and wireless routers are typically AP by default. So if two wireless routers autoconfig to being AP and using open routing, then there is only a risk if something that is an WiFi client is also a configured to be a router. > Of course, if your devices unintentionally include your neighbor in > the home network topology, your network will suddenly be multihomed, > but this is an artifact of the failure mode I'm talking about. > Eliminating that failure mode would solve the multihoming problem as > well. Some would call that a feature, not a failure mode. :-) But it usually does violate the service provider agreement and therefore open routing (or bridging) over wireless creates a potential theft of service. Ignoring that AP don't talk to AP. This is really an issue for wireless not for wired and is nothing new. AFAIK all wireless products today ship "open" and configured as an "AP" and have to be changed to enable some form of authentication. And many users never bother to change this. So what is new about a wireless router vs existing wireless bridges that do this? Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
