On Oct 14, 2014, at 4:40 PM, James Woodyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Naturally, you deprecate one of them, but my concern is that they never > expire if the objective is for a ULA prefix to be invariant. So how many > times can a network join with others before it runs out of space for > deprecated and redundant but unexpired and invariant ULA prefixes?
I don't think the objective is for the ULA prefix to be invariant. It's for the availability of a ULA prefix to be dependable, and for flash renumbering to be avoided whenever possible. So there's no problem with deprecating a ULA when you have two, and no need for the ULA to remain stable over long periods of time. The reason to want there to always be a ULA is that if you use a GUA as a ULA, the life cycle of your home network numbering is out of your control, and in the hands of whoever gave you the GUA. That's the only thing I think the ULA prefix has to do on a homenet: provide you with dependable, graceful homenet-local numbering. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
