Ted Lemon wrote:
If devices publish keys, then you can use those keys to make sure you
are still talking to them. And the dnssec validation of local names
would also work. Graceful renumbering should indeed result in DNS
updates. Bear in mind that this is graceful, so the old and new ULAs
coexist for a while.
Sounds good.
So can we assume
1) a single ULA namespace for resolving all active ULAs, that will
eventually converge to only containing RRs from a single ULA?
2) And that ULA namespace is disjoint from/completely independent of any
GUA namespace?
On May 13, 2016 06:45, "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ted Lemon <mailto:[email protected]>
12 May 2016 15:48
As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside
to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you
ultimately wind up with.
So are you suggesting the Homenet (internal) namespace should be
independent of ULA address space?
In which case
1) how do we avoid the ".local" security problem where mobile
devices are unable to distinguish whether they've actually moved
to a different Homenet, or whether they've stayed still and their
own Homenet has just renumbered.
Or else
2) Does the renumbering mechanism also trigger an automatic
renaming too?
--
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
--
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
