On 17.8.2015, at 9.22, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:01:04PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> That may be desirable to limit churn, but must not be depended on. The >> architecture is explicit on pp 25-26 that renumbering is an expected event: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7368#page-25 >> The addressing, routing and naming architecture has to be ready for >> renumbering at any time. Anything else is broken. > What analysis is there about application and API level problems in supprting > this model today ? My gut feeling is that a lot of applications or > even APIs like bind(::) may have problems, but thats just because i am > paranoid.
Just like in some other old workplace, cough, ’if it does not work without IPsec, do not expect it to work with it’. That is, if single-router home experiences power outage, outcome is rather catastrophic renumbering event (and loss of NAT state). I do not expect homenet stuff to do much better here, unless we want to make it crazily complicated. Normal, graceful renumberings are a part of IPv6 and should work equally well given single 7084 router and homenet router network. IPv4 ‘renumbering’ will be bit less graceful no matter what, I am afraid, but that’s outside the architecture RFC mandate anyway and done just as a public service. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
