In message <4e9f3e69.90...@isi.edu> Joe Touch writes: > On 10/19/2011 12:30 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > > In message<28269.1318994...@marajade.sandelman.ca> > > Michael Richardson writes: > > > >> > >>>>>>> "Curtis" == Curtis Villamizar<cur...@occnc.com> writes: > >> Curtis> A WiFi AP will not connect to another AP and wireless > >> Curtis> routers are typically AP by default. So if two wireless > >> Curtis> routers autoconfig to being AP and using open routing, then > >> > >> OUT OF THE BOX: not every device plugged into a home network have > >> no prior configuration. For instance, someone bringing a newsed > >> device to grandma's house. > > > > He who configures it needs to fix it. Or press the factory default > > button (if there is one). The example is two AP. Most AP can be > > restored to factory default with a button press. > > What happens if you have two of them and they're BOTH configured to boot > as the "master" home access point?
Master home access point? What is that? We are not talking about today's primitive NAT boxes that pretend to be routers. They either have a default route to the Internet or they don't. If they have a defailt route and they are at equal distance to that default route, then there are some arbitrary tie breakers. Worst case for AP might be if they are hard configed to the same channel and are very close to each other so they have about the same S/N and hosts can't decide which one to associate with, plus the interference with each other. In any case a press of the factory settings button should fix it. > ... > >> Curtis> there is only a risk if something that is an WiFi client is > >> Curtis> also a configured to be a router. > > Yes, but we want to assume that at least one of these will be configured > as a router as a default, which means we KNOW someone will turn on two > of them.... We want to assume that *all* AP are configured as routers except the legacy ones that want to be a dumb bridge with NAT to one port. > > On BSD and I suspect Linux as well, the default for: > > > > net.inet.ip.forwarding > > net.inet6.ip6.forwarding > > > > are both zero. > > Right, but that cannot be the default for a homenet box. You are mixing the discussion of what we want in routers with what we don't want enabled by default in every *legacy* PC, toaster and coffee maker. If the coffee maker is a competent IPv6 router with extensions to let it autoconfig, then let it be a router. I really don't want my dumb old kitchen appliances trying to NAT for each other. But that new IPv6 espresso maker that knows how to act as a router - that would be OK. :-) You lost the context. You snipped out the statement I was replying to. A little too much trimming on the response. It happens. > Joe Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
