On 16/10/2014 11:57, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>> See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
>>> backyard trapeze watching
>>> the flying wallendas instructional video from my home jukebox, I
>>> really don't want to have
>>> my network break connectivity because I happened to switch to my
>>> neighbor's wifi and I
>>> was using a ULA when I could have kept connectivity with a GUA.
>> This is simply a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with homenet.
>> It has to do with how the stack works on your home, and what the
>> propagation of radio waves looks like in your back yard. The
>> assumption that you will be able to access your jukebox over your
>> neighbor's wifi contains packed in it so much new protocol work we
>> could fork several working groups to handle it.
> If I use a GUA to my jukebox, the routing will just work regardless of
> which
> AP I'm currently connected to. With ULA's, not so much. That's hardly a
> non-sequitur.
>
> ULA's with mobility are very problematic IMO. I'm a lot more likely to
> wander onto my
> neighbor's home network than to suffer a flash renumbering from one of
> my providers.
> Mobility considerations aren't a distant future, they're now.
Sure, but that is *exactly* why you might want your personal
printer or your personal porn server or whatever to have an
address that can never be accessible from your neighbour's
yard. (Yes, I know that isn't "Security" with a big S but actually
it's part of a secure environment.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
