If you have no ULA, then you may have to fall back to manual creation of
the homenet domain in 4.7, which is less than ideal.
tim
ps - i've read the draft and think it's ready for adoption. Needs some
fleshing out, but it's has a good foundation.
On 7/19/16 11:22 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
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] <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
