Hi James, One more issue that maybe needs some consideration: How would a router know the boundary for dissemination of ULA prefixes? Here I am thinking of the case where there may be more than one ISP interface and particularly in the case of network splits and joins in the home.
So really I think there are a couple of different topics ripe for I-Ds: 1) How to handle splits/joins of networks in the home where different ULA prefixes are in use 2) Guidance on when (and when not) to propagate ULA prefixes. I think I have heard anecdotally that most ISP see traffic using ULAs on their ISP interface (which they drop). It would be nice to have a definitive draft that clearly states when this traffic should not be routed (so at least dilligent implementers can attempt to do the right thing). Again, I think this topic is fairly obvious in a home with a single ISP and all devices are connected from day 1 but it is less than clear when merging two or more networks in your home (or attempting to split the networks) Don From: James Woodyatt <[email protected]> Date: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:49 PM To: HOMENET Working Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !? 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
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
