Op 9 nov. 2012, om 09:00 heeft Mattia Rossi het volgende geschreven: > Am 08.11.2012 20:04, schrieb Michael Richardson: >>>>>>> "Mattia" == Mattia Rossi <mattia.rossi.mailingli...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as >> >> someone called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten. >> >> Mattia> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a >> Mattia> router, which they have to, as they can't bridge, but >> Mattia> there's only one exit router from one ISP which is managed >> Mattia> and gets a /64 only? SLAAC relay? I think in this case a >> Mattia> /64 is simply not acceptable. >> >> The lights work in the home (because routing of ULA works fine) >> Possibly, you can't control them from outside the home. So, ISP that >> gives out /56 has an obvious way to demonstrate why they suck less than >> /64-only ISP. > This is exactly the message that should be conveyed by the draft >> >> It is not clear that all LLNs will even want globally routable address >> space. Some will. Some won't know what to do with it. > I agree on that. That's why I took the case where they want globally routable > addresses to remote control each single light (or sensor - which might sound > more plausible to some folks). If the lights just need to communicate within > the homenet, ULA's do the job. And as you say, they might even be the better > solution.
I expect a controller, with global address. This enables control from outside. Other solution: VPN for back to my home. Teco > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
