On 11/23/11 10:06 , Ray Hunter wrote: >>> > IMHO increasing use of (overlapping) (low power) wireless networks in >>> > Homenet will only make >>> > count to infinity type problems more common, as marginal adjacencies come >>> > and go. >>> >> >> You mean 6lowpan type networks? I thought we had consensus to draw a circle >> around them and >> say, "put a device between that network and this." >> >> > I agree on 6LoWPAN: it has a clear gateway router, it's own routing > protocol, and should not be expected to provide an inter-Homenet link. > > But you can still have various flavors of WiFi that could be acting as a > (marginal) inter-router link, in parallel with copper. > What about those? Are they also stub networks that only service end > nodes? How do you know? How do you avoid 2 routers forming an OSPF/RIPng > adjacency if it's a single SSID just within wireless range of each > other? That might be exactly what you want in some cases. >>> > What about multicast support for streaming video to my iDevice as I walk >>> > from the lounge to >>> > the pool? AV will likely be a major homenet application. OSPF => MOSPF? >>> > IPng => DVMRP? >>> > Or should that use unicast + mobile IPv6? >>> >> >> Streaming video != multicast. I don't think we've had any discussion of >> multicast, except in >> the context of mDNS. I don't need it in the home. Do you? >> > That was exactly my question. As a consumer I'd like video distributed > around my home available to mobile devices: I don't really care how it's > transported. The video may well arrive into the home via multicast over > cable via DOCSIS. The set top box is in the living room but my TV is in > the bedroom. Do we expect people to run the cable TV network to every > room to separate set top boxes with their own decryption cards and keep > this outside of Homenet? Do we expect AV manufacturers to always unicast > video within the Homenet? e.g. if I want my camera with my own copyright > content to play on a remote system? Or should we discuss whether the > choice of unicast routing protocol has a knock on effect to multicast > routing?
multicast as frequently deployed on wireless networks tends to be terribly expensive, e.g. if it's transmitted at the lowest available rate. within the home, at least with fairly high rate wireless devices you'll probably find it more scalable to unicast it. > I'd like to keep things simple too, but I think it's an important > scoping question to get clear consensus on. > > regards, > RayH > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
