Sent from ipv6-only Android On Feb 26, 2013 8:19 PM, "Ole Troan" <o...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> Ok. I see it in the charter. I dont find it particularly appealing or worth a great trade off for the level of complexity involved. Especially if the tradeoffs require nat66 or something similarly complex > > > > Touché. > > > > Seriously, though, the point of routing in the home is that you really don't want to bridge disparate media, and you want routers plugged together by people who don't know about routing to create a happy, functioning network, not a dysfunctional network that sort of works but is never satisfactory. > > exactly. > > the arguments I've heard are: > - people just plug in whatever they bought, it must work regardless of being a router or a bridge
How does routing make this better for a homenet ? Ethernet supports arbitrary topologies. > - not all link-layers can be bridged together e.g. 802.15.4 Whos requirement is that? Is it a primary use case or can be a stub L3 link > - problems with bridging links with very different speed characteristics e.g. 802.11 and 1G wired Routing is better? > - isolation between networks with different policy, e.g. guest networks, internal home automation, public wifi > Seems like homenet is trying to devine the special sauce that makes Frankenstein come alive. Warning ... my home network includes exactly 1 802.11g AP that cost $50 6 years ago and effectively is Zero configuration. CB > cheers, > Ole >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
