Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Cerowrt-devel] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt
@ 2019-10-23  6:56 Dave Taht
       [not found] ` <deaa63b0-0b41-973a-bf6a-bc5e7fa6078b@globis.net>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dave Taht @ 2019-10-23  6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel, HOMENET

has anyone here had much chance to review this?



-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [homenet] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt
       [not found] ` <deaa63b0-0b41-973a-bf6a-bc5e7fa6078b@globis.net>
@ 2019-10-23 21:33   ` Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) @ 2019-10-23 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Hunter (v6ops), Dave Taht; +Cc: HOMENET, cerowrt-devel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1883 bytes --]

Ray and Christophe and others,

As the responsible AD for this draft, would you mind forwarding/adding mboned@ietf.org<mailto:mboned@ietf.org> to the recipient list? So that authors can read your valuable comments?

Thank you

-éric



From: homenet <homenet-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net>
Date: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 10:55
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, cerowrt-devel <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [homenet] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt


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,  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6583 etc.).

--
regards,
RayH

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5290 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-23 21:33 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-10-23  6:56 [Cerowrt-devel] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt Dave Taht
     [not found] ` <deaa63b0-0b41-973a-bf6a-bc5e7fa6078b@globis.net>
2019-10-23 21:33   ` [Cerowrt-devel] [homenet] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt Eric Vyncke (evyncke)

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox