Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

[[e-mail]]

Philip,

>>> I fully agree that we should not try to do a spanning tree in DHCP. However,
>>> most home setups tend to have a tree structure. And hierarchical routing is
>>> easy enough to implement.
>> 
>> They only have a tree structure until the home owner or his kids
>> plug in the red wire into the yellow hole.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is guaranteed to fail. But if it does, it would create a
> nice market demand for homenet.

not sure what point you are trying to make.
it's a fact that unless you have protocol protections in place, it is possible to make loops in networks with more than one device.

> There is no homenet for IPv4, nor do consumer ethernet switches run SPF by
> default, so it seems that this may not be such a big issue.

homenet supports both v4 and v6.

>> The phone would then act as a new homenet border gateway. Particpiate
>> in routing on the LAN side, and offer a new addressing block to
>> the homenet.  It doesn't care about the PIOs of other routers as
>> such.
> 
> Not everybody has an unlimited data plan. And in places we people do have
> unlimited data, do all phones of all people in the room announce themselves
> as homenet border gateways?
> 
> Do phones receive a suitably large prefix these days to number the local
> networks. Last thing I knew was that phone companies didn't want to do
> DHCP PD for some reason.

I think this is a somewhat disingenuous way to argue.
The question was "Does homenet really solve the phone problem I described?".

Yes, it does, but if you want rather to talk about how people currently use their phones as backup, independent of Internet protocol standardisation, we can of course do that.
In e.g. my case each family member uses their own phone and tethers whatever devices they need. So good bye home network in those cases.
(which would be an indication that we should stop considering the LAN as a special case, with e.g. MDNS).

Best regards,
Ole