Yeah, I think this is the right approach. I think a homenet with no ULA is broken, but I don't want to insist. Things just get a lot more brittle if you don't have ULAs.
On Jul 19, 2016 11:05, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ted, > > I've read the draft again, and I think that there's only one place where > you rely on having a ULA. So I'd suggest: > > Section 3.3 point 2, replace "the homenet's ULA prefix" with "the > homenet's ULA prefix (if any)". > > In Section 5.5, change "Homenets have at least one ULA prefix" with > "Homenets usually have exactly one non-deprecated ULA prefix". > > The only place where you actually rely on a ULA is Section 4.7, paragraph > 2. I have no idea what to do about that. > > Alternatives to this include making ULA generation a MUST in the HNCP RFC, > or making naming support a SHOULD that depends on having a ULA. I hold > a mild distaste for either of these possibilities, but I suppose I could > live with either. > > -- Juliusz >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
