Andres, Thanks for writing up this use-case. Quick Q - What global ID would get used in the ULA (assuming GUA is not known yet)?
> In a homenet case, why cannot the default ULA policy be boiled down to >"Discard > ULA packets trying to pass the CER"? That would be reasonable. Perhaps, just deny forwarding any traffic over an interface that doesn't have any ULA assigned. Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Anders Brandt <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:00:56 +0000 To: 6man <[email protected]>, Tim Chown <[email protected]>, Don Sturek <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, Ray Hunter <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>, Thomas Herbst <[email protected]> Subject: Routing between hosts in ULA subnets >As a branch of the discussion [homenet] ULA scope >[draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt], >I would like some clear explanation of the actual issues related to >routing between hosts in ULA subnets. >Some people seems to be concerned for a reason that seems pretty unclear >to me. > >Here is my use case: >================= > >I have a new house. The electrician installs lighting devices from two >vendors using different LLN technologies, >e.g. power line and RF. >The ISP has not installed a CER router yet, so there is no central source >of prefixes or naming service. > >The electrician completes his installation by including devices with >their respective border routers and testing > >with a stand-alone tool that all devices communicate correctly. > >Now a technician sets up advanced rules for how timers and sensors >control lights and window blinds. >He plugs a cable between the two LLN border routers and connects a PC. >He uses mDNS to discover the devices via Resource Directories in the LLN >border routers. >Devices are configured to control other devices using some application >protocol. >Everything works when the technician leaves the house. > >A week later the ISP installs the CER router. Everything still works. > > >Here is my question(s): >================== > >Why should homenet require the subnet ULAs to be distributed from another >router? > >It works without extra routers in the scenario described above. > >(Actually, the technician's configuration would break if new ULAs were >distributed by another router later on). > >Why cannot two border routers connected to the homenet LAN make routing >protocol announcements > >for two different ULA prefixes - such as: >"I am the router with LAN link-local address X and you can use me to >reach ULA subnet XX" ? > >In a homenet case, why cannot the default ULA policy be boiled down to >"Discard ULA packets trying to pass the CER"? > > >Thanks, > Anders > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >[email protected] >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
