Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Cerowrt-devel Digest, Vol 31, Issue 4

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

The homenet argument, is that there is already typically dozens of
routing like devices in the home today, and
double/triple nat often resulting from misconfiguration.

Townsley makes the arguement coherently in the video I mentioned
earlier. If you can take 15 minutes out of your day to watch that,
perhaps the point will be made.

Notably bridging ethernet to zigbee and sensor networks (and wifi, to
a large extent) is an horrifically bad idea. (IMHO). There are people
strongly in favor of using Rbridges in that situation...

Short term, finding ways to avoid double-triple-nat would be an
improvement on how things work.

In my own case I worry more about small business than home networks.
Once you fall off the cliff of bridging,
the route towards routing is hard. And I'm totally in love with the
idea of getting multiple uplinks to different providers to "just
work".


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Mike O'Dell <mo@ccr.org> wrote:
>
> excuse my naivete, but why on earth is homenet worried about
> "interior routers"? there shouldn't *be* any interior routers
> in a home network. ethernet switches, sure, but not routers.
>
>         -mo
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article