Re: [homenet] Multiple routers in the home

"Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info> Sun, 12 May 2019 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E54120091 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 00:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mathemainzel.info
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4NvA_mX8a0i for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2019 00:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vhost01.ipv6help.de (vhost01.ipv6help.de [IPv6:2a03:4000:31:345::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4764A12003E for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2019 00:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from home.mail (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by vhost01.ipv6help.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39DC45EF48 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2019 09:55:07 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 vhost01.ipv6help.de 39DC45EF48
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mathemainzel.info; s=mail; t=1557647707; bh=smu5xf5PtC5faXbVwqgLe3iI0JgLZ5mjjpG2dzDgXUc=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:From; b=yRkts26jEyh3xVSIxmy29oIEqAJLD2R4IhZ4JrlLbyqy18vWSwpurvuUV4qJeI4wt CsNLDydfFsHgsoM4KBJSwB2dPC2xgaLu9/+9Nhr8kbQupIE1rjFVFz8tV4RGVvT5lm Py92EvjeUKNw3cGvBWRbEXezfRDge5P954rVP1AM=
Message-ID: <5CD7D156.1030900@mathemainzel.info>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 09:55:02 +0200
From: "Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
Organization: Home
X-Mailer: Xmail [en] (WinNT4.0; U; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homenet@ietf.org
References: <bd3d7018c790d3316e67ceace8560af375849035.camel@newmarch.name> <5CD6841E.1060707@mathemainzel.info> <98c3049a-11c3-7c46-436e-cbbbd8fdd3fe@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <98c3049a-11c3-7c46-436e-cbbbd8fdd3fe@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms090509000407090700040302"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/2ser_O8VUPkT-HeH9ARQm2MptaA>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Multiple routers in the home
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 07:55:12 -0000

On 11.05.2019 22:51, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 5/11/19 01:13, Walter H. wrote:
>> On 11.05.2019 09:31, Jan Newmarch wrote:
>>> I'm new to this list so may cover old ground, be off topic, etc. Feel
>>> free to shoot me down!
>>>
>>> Barbara Stark writes [homenet rechartering, meetings, and code}
>>>
>>>      Multiple routers just for the purpose of having multiple (general
>>>      purpose) routers may not be a common use case?
>> I'd say this is very common, that you have TWO routers cascaded ...
>>
>> the outer one comes from your ISP, the inner one is your own ...
> Basically everyone who doesn't like their cable modem or at&t cpe that
> much is in this category. in many cases some of these would benifit from
> being bridged,
depends ...
not being bridged can mean a higher level of safety;
> when they subnet for the purposes of guest network or vlan
> isolation they definitely cannot be bridged.
>
depends on how this is done ...
in case the own router does the subnetting, bridging is possible