On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote: > In message <[email protected]> > Brian E Carpenter writes: > >> On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: >> > >> >> That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty side >> >> effects of re-establishing TPC sessions, or updating >> >> dynamic naming services, or having to run an L2 overlay network >> >> everywhere, or having to support protocols that require a >> >> specialised partner in crime on the server side (mTCP, shim6 et al). >> > >> > It's my firm belief that we need to rid clients of IP address dependence >> > for its sessions. Asking clients to participate in HNCP >> > only addresses the problem where HNCP is used. >> > >> > Fixing this for real would reap benefits for devices moving between any >> > kind of network, multiple providers, mobile/fixed etc. >> >> Violent agreement. This is not a homenet problem; it's an IP problem. >> In fact, it's exactly why IP addresses are considered harmful in >> some quarters. Trying to fix it just for homenet seems pointless. >> http://www.sigcomm.org/ccr/papers/2014/April/0000000.0000008 >> >> Brian > > > Brian, > > Seriously - your paper may be overstating the problem. At least if we > discount IPv4 and in doing so eliminate NAT we solve a lot of problems > that never should have existed in the first place. If we carry NAT > over to IPV6, then shame on us.
I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion. The pains of renumbering someones entire home network every time the ISP feels like it, given the enormous number of devices I have encountered that don't handle it well, are just too much to bear. The next version of cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to a static internal one (or ones, in the case of multiple egress gateways), and lacking a standard for such will use fcxx/8 addressing. I will make it be an option for people to turn off, but I've had it with being renumbered. I am sure this will break stuff, and I don't know what all it will do, and I intend to find out. Until some far off day where we have stable name to ipv6 address mapping, and vice versa, it is otherwise impossible to have useful ipv6 based services inside the home or small business. > > If we get rid of NAT a big part of the problem just goes away. No > alternate spaces, kludgy rendezvous mechanisms, etc. Using an address > on the loopback gets rid of the multiple interface problem and where > it really matters (ISP router and ISP or DS server reachability) this > has been done with configuration for two decades. The multihoming > failover or roaming are a bit more difficult but things MPTCP is > supposed to address. > > Curtis > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
