Re: [homenet] biggest L2 domain

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 13 December 2019 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 B2A89120089 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GQA33CmfAAnf for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EE8612002E for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D218389B7; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:09:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C2675A; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:13:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, homenet <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <EC907D0A-AC1C-44F9-9025-AD6B3878AFB8@fugue.com>
References: <20191213172646.GI72330@Space.Net> <EC907D0A-AC1C-44F9-9025-AD6B3878AFB8@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:13:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4894.1576267985@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/A1W9R_ckvcKDYwvQuHW5nxK0Wnw>
Subject: Re: [homenet] biggest L2 domain
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: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:13:09 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > If it turns out that there is some performance benefit to making a
    > port-to-port, point-to-point link for the router pair, then we can do that
    > adaptively. That’s an optimization: it need not be where we start, and indeed
    > back when we were initially working on this, I don’t think there was any
    > assumption that we would try to constrain links to being either
    > point-to-point or multi-station.

I'm not arguing for doing this.
I'm asking what happened to the text that said that we weren't.