The only problem with that is that in the homenet ideally we'd like to have local names signed and validatable via DNSSEC, and that requires that the local namespace be global in scope, even if the names published in that namespace are not.
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> wrote: > > > Ted Lemon <[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
