Re: I-D Action: draft-troan-6man-p2p-ethernet-00.txt Thu, 15 October 2020 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90653A12FC for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MvtGb-a8ersJ for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2913A133F for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:c0eb:1d7:a790:5105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A14654E11A64; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:47:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE9D40AAD31; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:47:05 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-troan-6man-p2p-ethernet-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:47:05 +0200
Cc: 6man WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:47:15 -0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks for reading it, and apologies for it being in a hand-wavy form still.

> An interesting draft on an important topic, but I think it oversimplifies the problem in (at least) two ways:
> 1. Even if we had new improved switches and hosts, they would for many years be mixed with unimproved switches and hosts on the old (emulated yellow cable) model. It's already bad enough when you mix switches that do MLD with dumb switches that really do only emulate yellow cable.

The draft assumes a "suspension of disbelief". a "what if we took IP routing all the way to the edge?".
I'd imagine this would be another tool in the toolbox rather than replacing large L2s wholesale.

You could in theory use this mechanism on a bridged network too, but then you'd lose link state notifications, add more security issues...)

A candidate for this could be the home router. That is typically packaged as a router with a tightly coupled bridge and AP.
No host changes are required, so you could deploy this with a feature upgrade of a single device.

> 2. I think we should be expect mesh rather than hub and spoke in the quite near future.
> Which all takes us back to homenet, doesn't it?

Yes, this depends on homenet.
It removes the ability to extend the network on L2, so for a p2p ethernet to be extendable it needs homenet.

Best regards,