On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh, ULAs and stable addressing sound good on paper, sure. But as soon as > you actually try to use them, then suddenly there are a boatload of > scenarios that you need to deal with like the ones presented by James many > messages ago. What happens on splits? What happens on joins? Do you need to > keep old ULAs around? How many? Will implementations age them out? (I can > tell you the answer to that one: "no"; they're more likely to stop > accepting new ones than to have new ones replace old ones). And so on and > so forth. > > You may have missed the message where I responded to James with concrete > proposals for how to solve these problems. It is entirely possible that > if we explore that solution space we will conclude, as you have, that no > solution is reliable and not brittle, but I don't think we have explored > it, so I think your conclusion that we will not come up with a good > solution is premature. >
As I recall, the proposals in your response were less than concrete and didn't solve the problems. In particular, I remain curious about how to expire the locally generated ULA prefixes that accumulate over repeated network joins and splits. I remember explaining how those events could be rather more frequent than people might be assuming, and that's where the discourse seemed to stop. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
