On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:00 PM, James Woodyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay... except it seems you're admitting that my scenario where a simple > reconfiguration of a network topology, e.g. one caused by an intermittent > RF interference on an unlicensed band of the radio spectrum, would result > in a fully regular and normalized generation of a ULA prefix that would > subsequently be deprecated on network rejoin and subsequently deprecated > again. This could happen several times per hour, right? > > No, if it's done right the network would have to be partitioned for on the > order of a week or two before the new ULA would be generated. Did you respond to my previous criticism of this idea? If so, then I missed it. It's not a good idea to commission a new standalone network with the same ULA as a previously commissioned network, because it destroys the main property of ULA prefixes that makes them useful: the statistical unlikelihood of merge collisions in the global address realm. > The reason I think it's beneficial is that it reduces to the minimum the > number of instances where a long-lived connection will have to be broken > because of a renumbering event. I don't think we can reduce that number > to zero, but I think we can make it a lot less likely than it would be if > we renumber every time the upstream link goes away. > Sounds to me like a benefit of very dubious value at best. It's a fact that applications cannot depend on the network never encountering a renumbering event. That's the whole reason addresses have valid and preferred lifetimes in the first place. Applications that use long-lived IPv6 connections cannot escape the problem that interface addresses may expire at any time. If they're not coded to recover from such events, then it's their logic error, not ours. I see no reason to work very hard to provide applications with a class of global scope interface addresses that IETF documents encourage developers to assume will never reach vltime=0 except when that assumption is mysteriously invalid anyway because reasons. If there is a good reason for it, which I'm missing, then I'm happy to consider it. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
