On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi
wrote:
My assertion:
Given HNCP generated one spans whole administrative domain, _and_ should
not have routing anywhere outside it, it’s uniqueness does not _matter_.
Wait. Where did this and should not be routable
On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Sure, people might not do that; sure there might be
some people confusion when 5 friends get together for a LAN party (hey,
why are there three servers called 'quake'? Which one is quake-1?), but I
don't think that
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
My assertion:
Given HNCP generated one spans whole administrative domain, _and_
should not have routing anywhere outside it, it’s uniqueness does
On 22.10.2014, at 20.51, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi
wrote:
Wait. Where did this and should not be routable anywhere outside
recommendation come from? And if it's only a recommendation and not a
On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
They may often be the only *default* routers, but there can be— and
absolutely definitely will be in the vast majority of cases— overlay networks
that route ULA prefixes to, from and most likely *between* home networks over
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
They may often be the only *default* routers, but there can be— and
absolutely definitely will be in the vast majority of cases— overlay
networks that
Michael,
On 23/10/2014 07:04, Michael Richardson wrote:
James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
My assertion:
Given HNCP generated one spans whole administrative domain, _and_
should not have routing anywhere outside it, it’s uniqueness does not
_matter_.
Hello,
I tried to make a proposal which would deal with these network splits.
Even though I must say that the PA draft in the first place did not cause any
problem when network splits and joins later (collisions are dealt with). This
adds quite a bunch of complexity, and provides the
Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote:
9.1.2. Advertising a ULA prefix
A router MAY start advertising a ULA prefix whenever the two
following conditions are met:
o It is the network leader.
o There is no other advertised ULA prefix.
I am concerned
On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:00 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
Okay... except it seems you're admitting that my scenario where a simple
reconfiguration of a network topology, e.g. one caused by an intermittent RF
interference on an unlicensed band of the radio spectrum, would result in
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:00 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
Okay... except it seems you're admitting that my scenario where a simple
reconfiguration of a network topology, e.g. one caused by an intermittent
RF
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
Yes, I read your explanation, and the solution I proposed takes it into
account. Please stop arguing to win and actually read what I wrote.
I did read what you wrote, and I do not agree that you are taking into
account my
On Oct 20, 2014, at 4:52 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
I did read what you wrote, and I do not agree that you are taking into
account my concerns. Nevertheless, I shall stop arguing my case, and I will
accept that I've lost it.
I persist in thinking that we are failing to
On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I did explain how to do that: before the network partitions,
That seems to imply that you know in advance that the network
will partition. I assume that it will usually be a surprise.
Normally there is no
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Deprecated addresses can still be used until their valid lifetime
expires.
Ok, got it. It won't be used for new connections if there is something
around with a non-zero preferred lifetime, but old ones within the home
will still work. Check.
--
Hi,
Op 16 okt. 2014, om 15:22 heeft Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com het
volgende geschreven:
Per the table in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724#section-2.1 it will pick
the GUA as a destination address, and per Rule 6, it will choose the GUA to
connect to it.
Do you know if
traffic, but imho, not that big
overhead and only local traffic
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: donderdag 16 oktober 2014 16:19
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Michael Thomas
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST
On Oct 17, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
You keep mentioning this, but you're incorrect. Even if the ISP
flash-renumbers, hosts will not lower the lifetime of their IP addresses
below 2 hours, per RFC 4862.
You are technically correct, and I will admit to having
On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
Yes (but again, it won't be killed by the renumbering; it will be killed
*when its source address expires*). But I really doubt that real users have
long-lived connections from apps that don't reconnect on failure. Geeks
On Oct 17, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
But you're saying you want ULAs because you want to continue to do what you
were doing yesterday: persistent connections, like SSH and X-windows. I think
you're trying to fix the problem at the wrong layer. But I don't
On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
In my mind, the kind of reason for a CPE device *NOT* to offer a ULA is
because
the administrator typed in their own (provider independant) GUA over the ULA.
Good point.
On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I will go back and read James' message about joins and splits.
It seems that we have this problem with GUAs as well, and it seems that
the whole address selection issue exists without ULAs, as long as one has
On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:49 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
As I recall, the proposals in your response were less than concrete and
didn't solve the problems. In particular, I remain curious about how to
expire the locally generated ULA prefixes that accumulate over repeated
in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
Oh, ULAs and stable addressing sound good on paper, sure. But as soon as
you actually try to use them, then suddenly
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:49 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
As I recall, the proposals in your response were less than concrete and
didn't solve the problems. In particular, I remain curious about how to
expire the
On Oct 17, 2014, at 4:41 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
I explained why you must generate a new ULA prefix every time you commission
a new network.
Yes, you did, and I believe the mechanism I proposed for handling network
splits addressed the problem you described. If you think
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
But there is a problem with only deprecating prefixes without expiring
them. If they never expire, then they accumulate without limit within
existing
On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:16 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
p1. It looks like you agree that locally generate ULA prefixes should be
allowed to expire. What I don't see is any conceptual outline for deciding,
in a distributed methodology, which prefixes to renew and which to release
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
minutes is too short, because that will break for example a movie
stream. But a 30-60 minute overlap will work fine for web browsing and
nearly all applications a typical end-user uses other than long movies.
I'd say a lot of the movie applications will
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Tero Kivinen wrote:
My ssh connections are usually up and running for ever. They only go
down when I update my firewall, there is network problems, or our
company firewall is reset for some reason. Usually that means the ssh
connection is up for few months... I would be
Le 16/10/2014 00:49, Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional video
from my home jukebox, I really don't want to have my
Le 16/10/2014 00:57, Michael Thomas a écrit :
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional
video from my
On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:14 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
What I most worry about is for instance SSH.
Mikael, I think we have strayed sufficiently far off the topic that it is
harmful for us to continue discussing it on the homenet mailing list. I agree
with you that better
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for
local communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered,
Actually, they can't.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.5.3 paragraph e) 3.
In message
CAKD1Yr2aLTjEo=7yj+=rzu8vpqtg6ujsuujq+onjmmtoef4...@mail.gmail.com, Lorenzo
Colitti write
s:
--20cf303dd7088da2c005058a23d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Unless you have really old stacks your
On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
Ted, you're going in circles here. You've been arguing for many messages that
we should use ULAs because GUAs can be flash renumbered. And now you provide
an example of an event that *is* a flash renumbering, and then
Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to
talk to your jukebox when you are on your neighbor's network and the ULA to
talk to it when you are on your own.
No, it won't. It will pick GUA-GUA both times.
Per the table in
On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
And when your ISP renumbers you, or a new ULA joins the network, you're going
to tell the hosts about the new prefix policy using what type of packet?
There's no reconfigure in stateless DHCPv6.
Wouldn't the host do a
On Oct 16, 2014, at 10:18 AM 10/16/14, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
Um, no? Why would it?
Because that's an indication that there is new
On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That seems
pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP implementation works
that way.
How do they work, then? And why would you describe this
On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That
seems pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP
implementation works that way.
How do they work, then? And why would you describe
On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:39 AM, STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com wrote:
I think support for receiving more specific routes in RA messages (RFC 4191)
would be easier to get hosts to implement than DHCPv6.
This wouldn't help, because there's nothing to differentiate the GUA from the
ULA.
In any
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Markus Stenberg wrote:
Every time I hear about ISP-forced customer renumberings, the more I
start to think that 1+ ULA prefixes per home is a MUST, not a SHOULD.
For me this isn't just about ISP-forced customer renumberings, but to also
handle power outages, equipment
Hi James,
Consider a hypothetical router that has the regular automatic default
behavior of commissioning a new standalone network while discovering any
existing networks that it already possesses the credentials to join. Now
consider what happens when devices of this category are
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I believe we should use SHIM6, MP-TCP, mosh and other similar techniques
to make sure that we can move sessions around when doing renumbering.
IPv6 has the infrastructure on L3 to handle renumbering gracefully, now we
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 06:17:28PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
But then when I tell other people, they can't do it. Because on a consumer
lines
it is just too complicated.
Isn't the main thing that other people are just plain not interested in
doing so in the first place...?
Please
Markus Stenberg writes:
Because no matter what ISP does, my IPv4 prefixes in my home _are_
stable. And IPv6 ones too (thanks to using statically configured
tunnel, cough).
When we defined a recommendation for ISPs in Finland for IPv6, we
suggested that ISPs should always give same prefix to
On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
I explained my reasoning. Multiple times. Here and on other lists. Again
and again.
When you repeat yourself again and again, people stop listening to you. There
was a consensus call done on this, and the architecture
In your letter dated Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:58:43 +0200 you wrote:
Please understand that there are way more non-geeks out there that have
no interest in computers except use them than there are geeks who care
about IP addressing. *Our* job is to make it work for *them*, without
forcing our world
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 05:47:02PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:58:43 +0200 you wrote:
Please understand that there are way more non-geeks out there that have
no interest in computers except use them than there are geeks who care
about IP
Ted - you wrote something that surprised me (in line)...
On Oct 15, 2014, at 11:34 AM 10/15/14, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
I explained my reasoning. Multiple times. Here and on other lists. Again
and again.
When you
On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Could you remind me what your point was?
My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for local
communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered, and the use of them on the
local wire has the potential
On 10/15/2014 09:28 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Could you remind me what your point was?
My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for local
communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered, and the use of
Hi Ted,
My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for
local communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered, and the use of
them on the local wire has the potential to cause disruptions on the local
wire that could be prevented by using ULAs. And that there
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
[I wrote:]
Consider a hypothetical router that has the regular automatic default
behavior of commissioning a new standalone network while discovering any
existing networks that it already possesses the credentials to
On 10/15/2014 10:50 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
What about when my device is wandering back and forth between my ap and my
neighbor's?
I don't think that's a problem that we're scoped to solve, unless your and your
neighbors'
On Oct 15, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'm just pushing back that ULA's aren't necessarily without problems. It's
easy to see how they
can cause weird connectivity breaks across administrative domains. Though
it's obviously not
just homenets, wandering back and
On 10/15/14, 11:57 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Ideally your device should not be hopping back and forth between networks. If
it does, there is no work for homenet to do to address the problems that arise.
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
[...] I really don't want to have my network break connectivity because I
happened to switch to my neighbor's wifi and I was using a ULA when I could
have kept connectivity with a GUA.
Except REC-49 in RFC 6092 does not
On 10/15/14, 1:28 PM, James Woodyatt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote:
[...] I really don't want to have my network break connectivity
because I happened to switch to my neighbor's wifi and I was using
a ULA when I
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my backyard
trapeze watching
the flying wallendas instructional video from my home jukebox, I really don't
want to have
my network break connectivity because I
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my backyard
trapeze watching
the flying wallendas instructional video from my home jukebox, I really don't
want to have
my
On Oct 15, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
If I use a GUA to my jukebox, the routing will just work regardless of which
AP I'm currently connected to. With ULA's, not so much. That's hardly a
non-sequitur.
You appear to have some misconceptions both about how IP routing
On 10/15/14, 4:06 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
If I use a GUA to my jukebox, the routing will just work regardless of which
AP I'm currently connected to. With ULA's, not so much. That's hardly a
non-sequitur.
You appear to have some
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'm talking about the server, not the client. ULA == unreachable on my
neighbor's wifi.
Don't want assumptions that servers on my home network will only be reachable
by ULA's.
If a GUA is being advertised on your homenet,
In message 543efbf1.6040...@mtcc.com, Michael Thomas writes:
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my backyard
trapeze watching
the flying wallendas
On 16/10/2014 11:57, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching
the flying wallendas instructional video from my
Hello group,
The architecture document states the following:
- A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique
prefix(es) to allow stable communication between devices [...]
This translates into section 9.1 in the Prefix Assignment draft:
- A router MAY
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Erik Kline wrote:
I vote no, please don't make it MUST.
I agree, ULA should be optional, not MUST.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On 14.10.2014, at 11.21, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Erik Kline wrote:
I vote no, please don't make it MUST.
I agree, ULA should be optional, not MUST.
If we live in the land where we ignore existing broken implementations..
From my point of view, it should
In message
CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=x...@mail.gmail.com, Erik
Kline writes:
I vote no, please don't make it MUST.
Among other things, if my home edge router losing it's upstream it (in
theory) doesn't have to deprecate the global prefix in the home, just
the default
:13
To: Pierre Pfister
Cc: HOMENET Working Group
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
I vote no, please don't make it MUST.
Among other things, if my home edge router losing it's upstream it (in
theory) doesn't have to deprecate the global prefix in the home, just
Looks like a good default policy to me.
So there always is at least one IPv6 prefix (if not a GUA, generate a ULA).
It still provides always-on IPv6 connectivity. And would therefore simplify
protocol design and implementation.
Does it seems like a better compromise to you (Mikael, Erik, Wuyts)
On Oct 14, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
Among other things, if my home edge router losing it's upstream it (in
theory) doesn't have to deprecate the global prefix in the home, just
the default route. Since I can't get to the Internet anyway, all I
need is (almost) any
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:44:03AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
This is something we discussed at length back when we were doing
the architecture document. The problem with this approach is that
it exposes you to flash renumbering when you get back online, or
if you can't do flash
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
flash renumber is a problem is pretty much a non-argument, as flash
renumbering *will* happen, and devices in the home *will* have to handle it.
Indeed. The
In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200 you wrote:
Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to
handle it.
I'm happy my ISP doesn't do that. I would probably just use a tunnel instead.
One of the advantages of IPv6 is that it is way easier to run publicly
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
flash renumber is a problem is pretty much a non-argument, as flash
renumbering *will* happen, and
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:44:03AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
This is something we discussed at length back when we were doing
the architecture document. The problem with this approach is that
it exposes you to flash renumbering
very well.
Regs
Carl
-Original Message-
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: dinsdag 14 oktober 2014 16:42
To: Gert Doering
Cc: Erik Kline; HOMENET Working Group; Pierre Pfister
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote:
The architecture document states the following: - A home network
running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique
prefix(es) to allow stable communication
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 05:09:42PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200 you wrote:
Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to
handle it.
I'm happy my ISP doesn't do that. I would probably just use a tunnel instead.
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:13:34AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Indeed. The question is, should we increase the number of instances in
which they are forced to handle it, or no?
Because this is the only way that
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Wuyts Carl carl.wu...@technicolor.com wrote:
I can confirm that. We have a customer handing out a new prefix every 4 days.
But let's be clear: is your customer doing flash renumbering, or gracefully
renumbering? If they are flash renumbering, are they doing it
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
That reply doesn't surprise me the least, it's the standard answer from
every geek who has not spent a few weeks thinking about this :-)
This isn't a helpful response, Gert. If you are right, you can explain the
reason that you
a data point: openwrt barrier breaker just shipped with ula generation enabled.
Another data point - I just deployed ipv6 source specific routing in
production. A box with an ipv6 address 5 hops deep in the network was
able to get out (through 4 routers without any ipv6 addresses, just
the fe80)
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
In the end, at some point in time, the old prefix goes away, however
you phase it. So if the application stubbornly clings to it, it will stop
working.
This is correct, but if you have a preferred and a deprecated prefix, the
I haven't even mentioned source address selection, as that doesn't come
into play for a singlehomed homenet - but as soon as the homenet gets
multihomed, applications would benefit a LOT from doing intelligent
source address selection. Like in presenting users a selection menu
use ISP? -
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Application developers MUST handle changing addresses, for example by not
doing silly things like at startup, do some DNS resolving and socket
binding to a fixed address, and assume that the addresses you receive
are not
Hi,
Op 14 okt. 2014, om 18:27 heeft Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com het volgende
geschreven:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
One thing that does worry me is every application developer having to
re-invent the code for all of this (find labels, actually
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
I haven't encountered any ISPs that do flash renumbering, and I'm
surprised to hear you saying that T-Online is doing it: that's not my
understanding. In general, providers that renumber their customers use
graceful renumbering, not flash renumbering.
On Oct 14, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I know providers that cycle their PPPoE sessions once per day to give
customers new IPv4 GUA once per day.
Right. This is IPv4. In IPv4 we typically use a NAT on the local wire, so we
get the effect we are trying to
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi
wrote:
From my point of view, it should be SHOULD _always_ generate ULA (so that
privacy oriented things in a home have a sane default without need for
trusting firewalling), and MUST generate if no GUA around.
I don't
On Oct 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
On the topic of the original question, if I were to editorialize here, then I
would want to see something like this:
I get that you have an opinion on this, but you haven't actually stated any
argument to support what you
On 15/10/2014 08:31, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
On the topic of the original question, if I were to editorialize here, then
I would want to see something like this:
I get that you have an opinion on this, but you haven't actually
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
[...]
This is where I am just completely puzzled. We talked about this
previously. I thought the idea was that the homenet ULA should converge:
that there should only be one, ultimately [...]
This is exactly what I'm
On Oct 14, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
There is also the exception that arises when two networks with different ULA
prefixes are joined— now you have one network, with two ULA prefixes, neither
of which can ever be allowed to expire.)
When we talked about this
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
When we talked about this previously, I think the idea was that when two
networks with two sets of ULA prefixes merge, you deprecate one of them.
[...]
Naturally, you deprecate one of them, but my concern is that they never
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
I don't think the objective is for the ULA prefix to be invariant. It's
for the availability of a ULA prefix to be dependable, and for flash
renumbering to be avoided whenever possible. So there's no problem with
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:40 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
When we talked about this previously, I think the idea was that when two
networks with two sets of ULA prefixes merge, you deprecate one of them.
[...]
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
