On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > I will go back and read James' message about joins and splits. > It seems that we have this problem with GUAs as well, and it seems that > the whole address selection issue exists without ULAs, as long as one has > multiple ISPs.
The issue with joins and splits is that you would like your numbering to survive a temporary network partition, but to not survive a permanent network partition. I think this problem is solvable, and have some ideas about how to do it, which are half-baked and probably won't work without tweaking. E.g., when a homenet chooses a ULA, it could divide the /64s evenly between all of the participating homenet routers. If there's a partition, the homenet routers get to keep the /64s they got to begin with, but if after some period of time (TBD) the partition hasn't healed, one of them (chosen back when the network wasn't partitioned) begins a transition to a new randomly-chosen ULA. If new routers are added to a homenet, HNCP should be able to balance out the pool of free /64s so that every router has some to keep during a partition. If two homenets each with their own ULA are joined, one of the ULAs is deprecated with a long tail. It would also be worth factoring power-cycling into this: if a homenet router that had a ULA is powered off, then powered back on, connected to a new homenet, its ULA is probably the one that should be deprecated. This will still fail in the case that there are devices that are still using the prefix, but I think we're now down in the really unlikely scenarios that we don't have to solve. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
