Re: [homenet] Multiple routers in the home

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 12 May 2019 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 C47051200FC for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 23:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 TU3KZ2CcXUzy for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 23:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 258981200A2 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 23:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 62DDFB2; Sun, 12 May 2019 08:03:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1557641004; bh=Ub272sIiYdXZQxg3m2Cb9pFo5+KfXNkXfBAwY6uUvhk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=r3auhlqtqkMx49cRFjFUYu2nKqbBbpr/WH878u0lnrJJzzNt4vCORoND5PneRb+qj SJrrCMrYHKsF04sKvT0hGlr1sIu5zhBVlfOAGKhT0qs20K/3SlxByFJJKGW5e7IRyB vC7mTkL3mg/pmIOj8W50MMNIi+S6ThPSm2/bi8S8=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBD7B1; Sun, 12 May 2019 08:03:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 08:03:24 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Jan Newmarch <jan@newmarch.name>
cc: 'homenet' <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <bd3d7018c790d3316e67ceace8560af375849035.camel@newmarch.name>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905120757530.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <bd3d7018c790d3316e67ceace8560af375849035.camel@newmarch.name>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/EZHZE2ioE9bJ1aGSyoawMXn4l1A>
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 06:03:31 -0000

On Sat, 11 May 2019, Jan Newmarch wrote:

> * looking at e.g. the LIFX forum ("Maximum/many bulbs on a single 
> network"), reports are that most home routers fail at handling more than 
> 30 nodes on a single SSID, and other reports are that 30 nodes per home 
> will the _average_ number within a year or two in Australia at least. 
> Multiple (or expensive) routers seem to be the only solution anyway.

I've heard reports of HGWs that start to have problems when they're seeing 
more than ~30 simultaneous IPv4 devices connected to it, and it doesn't 
matter if they're wired or wifi. This is of course an implementation 
problem and not an architecture problem.

The home multiple router problem deployment cases I've seen so far (apart 
from the ones already mentioned) is to support IOT gateways. I've also 
personally deployed it to create separate L2 domains because I had 
unwanted STP interaction between some of my L2 switches and a 
virtualisation server running Linux bridging. The last one I guess isn't 
representative for most people, but I still see the need for intentional 
L2 separation (also to support completely different L1/L2 technologies) as 
a driver to have multiple routers within the home.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se