On 10/7/11 06:17 , james woodyatt wrote: > On Oct 6, 2011, at 23:57 , Joel jaeggli wrote: >> >> every-time I connect my split-tunneled vpn to my home network, I >> am attaching a non-dfz-connected inter-network behind my home >> network > > Yes, but these utility networks are faced basically with the problem > of establish a private network connection through an access > concentrator in each and every subscriber home network > simultaneously. In IPv4, this doesn't merely have the *potential* > for address realm conflict... it's absolutely unavoidable, and it > kills the deal before you can even begin to work on the routing > problem. In IPv6, there isn't a huge problem with address realm > conflict, but the routing problem looms pretty big.
If you can cover the end-users total intersection between the utility network and their own with one or two prefixes instead of (for example the 250 public/private prefixes in my split tunnels table) it seems like a tractable problem. it's better if they're GUA,cause then you have some strong assurance that they don't intersect. I guess what I'd say is that while interconnection with private inter-nets may well be classified as either a threat or a menace at your convenience, it's not a new problem as surfaced by homenet and it's probably not going away. > > -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, core os > networking > > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
