Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you
Chris == Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com writes: Robert Why a wireless access point at the pool has to also be a Robert router ? Isn't it sufficient to extend one or more layer 2 Robert to it ? It's not much of an access point if it doesn't have a second interface, is it? If it's out at the pool, and it has no wired layer2, then it might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay. But, it might also be connected to the wired network in the pool house. Chris Bridging works fine between 802.11 and 802.1--or another Chris 802.11 link. No routing required. Chris It works for the IETF meeting networks and pretty much how Chris all Enterprise gear is setup. Chris, I've helped out at the IETF NOC a number of years ago. I know lots about the things you do to make the IETF network just work, mostly when I encounter other networks/conferences where things rarely work. Do you think that the average home user knows how to turn off multicast, or even why they should? And, once they do that, do they know why their service discovery protocols now fail? Jim Gettys has repeated many times that multicast on wireless occurs at much lower data rates (1Mb/s on links that otherwise do 100Mb/s). Others have said that some access points turn multicast into unicast frames, but I've not experienced this. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you
Chris == Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com writes: Chris Often you can buy an access point or a wireless router. Many Chris wireless routers have several switched Ethernet ports and a Chris single WAN Ethernet port. Just don't use the WAN port and Chris you're bridged. And some wireless routers (the Apple Airport yes, and now you have two DHCP servers. IPv4 gives us no clues that we should turn off one of them. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you
Rex == Rex Buddenberg bud...@nps.edu writes: Rex Scenario for orientation. Instead of the EMT in the ambulance Rex having a cellphone to call the emergency room, the EMT will be Rex armed with several diagnostic gadgets attached to a LAN (either Rex ethernet or WiFi). And a router. The router will, in turn be Rex linked to the rest of internet with a radio-WAN. Rex Scenario implications. Right now, emergency services tend to Rex rely on a set of high sites -- Monterey County where I live, Rex has eleven. But the broadband technologies all look better Rex with an order of magnitude more sites (think schoolhouse roofs) Rex and consequently more handoffs (aka routing table volatility). Great, but unless you are saying that the EMT is going to use my home network to get more bits through, I don't think this is at all in scope. The EMT have the organization and manpower and mandate to have a managed network. The home network has no manpower, and is seldom organized. (The more geekier the network, the less organized :-)) -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. pgp210GNHKR3u.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you
Hi Tony, I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an extensible, flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I think that we are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well operate on home devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues of RIP. Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li tony...@tony.li wrote: The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable. Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration should not be unreasonable. Tony On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How many routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a zeroconf or zeroadmin type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an IP address is. Seems like a RIP-like (around the same scope of complexity) would be enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN discussion. The filter for any of these decisions should probably always be a zeroconf or zeroadmin scenario -- if a proposed approach to a problem can't exist in a zeroconf/admin environment, then I would think it would not be the right choice. Also, as a first cut solution, we I think we should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the fringe. The participants of this working group, and their respective home networking setups, are probably not our typical customer. Randy On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: Hi, Acee, Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless network for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as well for smart objects in the same environment, together with the homenet architecture and new model in the future. Best wishes Qiong I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requirements for every possible device in the home. Thanks, Acee My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field in multiple interoperable implementations. As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ rtgwg mailing list rt...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you
I agree with Jim. The reason why we developed OLSR and the its successor OLSRv2 was precisely that wireless environments are very different from wired. There are plenty of deployments of OLSR and several of OLSRv2, with up to several hundreds of wireless routers, so it is demonstrably working. Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote: On 10/03/2011 03:32 PM, Tony Li wrote: On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may not be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in fruitful ways. Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on my back from it in wireless...). Understood. Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that area. Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely wireless environment. However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect in the home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the better overall approach. Having been seriously scarred by presuming that wireless was similar to wired, I'm a believer in careful testing, rather than expecting that something should work. Without running code, demonstrably working, I'll take nothing on faith in this area. Wireless != wired, is what I took away from that (painful) experience. - Jim Tony ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
