Re: [homenet]

"Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <> Wed, 23 October 2019 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FC81200B7 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fNPamtqmAr51 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5865312007A for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FC240137; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:55:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d5dPkJkAWFsc; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:55:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro-3.local ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 70922400FF; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:55:34 +0200 (CEST)
To: Dave Taht <>
Cc: cerowrt-devel <>, HOMENET <>
References: <>
From: "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:55:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D09AAD8B9EAD43E5A9EDB8EE"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:55:40 -0000

Dave Taht wrote on 23/10/2019 08:56:
> has anyone here had much chance to review this?
Thanks for the prompt.

 From a pure Homenet perspective, it reinforces that L3 routing is the 
correct solution for segmenting networks where end nodes have different 
characteristics. e.g. battery powered or different underlying LAN 
technology. And maybe we need a firewall in front of those segments to 
prevent inbound scanning traffic overloading the link.

Other than that I'm not sure it says much more than "Multicast is great 
for efficiency, until it isn't".

Section 3.2.4:
 > On a wired network, there is not a huge difference between unicast, 
multicast and broadcast traffic.

I'd dispute this statement as being overly generic. Anyway, it doesn't 
add much to the discussion (about wireless).

The majority of modern wired Ethernets are actually effectively point to 
point networks, with multicast and broadcast being emulated in silicon 
or software.

Although maybe having a less visible impact than on wireless, multicast 
and broadcast can also have some similar operational impact on wired 
networks (waking nodes unnecessarily, switching via a slow (software) 
path in the main processor, etc.).