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 home jukebox, 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.
This is simply a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with homenet.
It has to do with how the stack works on your home, and what the
propagation of radio waves looks like in your back yard. The
assumption that you will be able to access your jukebox over your
neighbor's wifi contains packed in it so much new protocol work we
could fork several working groups to handle it.
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.
ULA's with mobility are very problematic IMO.
I think this is right, mobility and ULAs may have some issues.
If by mobility we understand Mobile IP then assigning a GUA to HA (or
some form of protocol forwarding from the Box to the HA) only may allow
to then use ULAs for the mobile devices. The implications of NATv6 may
vary.
I'm a lot more likely to wander onto my neighbor's home network than
to suffer a flash renumbering from one of my providers.
Yes and no. WiFi wandering is completely under the enduser's control.
Mobility considerations aren't a distant future, they're now.
I agree.
Alex
Mike
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
