Re: [homenet] Homenet market gap analysis...

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I suppose a point to be investigated is that however roaming happens,
unless all packets are flooded to all links, the layer 2 switch always
triggers a routing change, whether at layer 2 or layer 3.

So it might be worth doing an analysis of the pros and cons of L2 versus L3
roaming. I know Dave Täht has looked into doing it at L3 at the host, but
that isn’t practical and is in any case out of scope for homenet. What is
easier if it’s done at L2?  At L3?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 17:27 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > I especially agree with the statement on wifi roaming between APs does
> > require shared L2, and there has been discussions about this and how
> > to solve that, and I think it's a requirement for homenet to become a
> > useful solution in that space. This would probably require some kind
> > of tunneling or vlan encapsuatlion between homenet devices to be
> > controlled somehow. There are routing protocols out there that already
> > do this, can perhaps be used as inspiration.
>
> You don't actually need encapsulation or VLANs if all access points
> participate in the routing protocol. You can just announce routes for
> each of the clients' IP addresses on roaming. You'll need some mechanism
> for discovering those IP addresses of course; one option is something
> like l3roamd[0] (which more or less just sniffs the addresses used by
> the client), but others are certainly possible. I remember discussing
> other approaches with Juliusz at some point, but I guess none of us ever
> got around to implementing something.
>
> Either way, I guess this is something homenet could conceivably specify
> a solution for if there was sufficient interest... :)
>
> -Toke
>
> [0] https://github.com/freifunk-gluon/l3roamd
>