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_. > >> > > > Wait. Where did this "and should not be routable anywhere outside" > > recommendation come from? And if it's only a recommendation and not a > > requirement, then it still matters, right? I don't see that we can > > meaningfully make it a requirement, and I would advise against > > attempting to make it a recommendation. I don't believe such a > > recommendation will be followed. > > I won't mince words, "recommendation"/"requirement"/"potato"/etc.. I think > it's a very strong SHOULD, the only reason for someone to do otherwise would > by explicit geek-administator action. Manually configuring a VPN for example. > > It's not saying that ULA can never be routed by consenting adults, it's > saying that the Homenet ULA SHOULD never be routed outside that homenet. > > Where it comes from; from the architecture document, I hope. > I'm pretty sure we said that somewhere, but I'll have to go search for the > specific statement.
You may be thinking of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193#section-4, if we equate "site" to "homenet". I just re-read it and it all still seems right to me. It doesn't discuss network splits, however, and that is not a theoretical issue in homenets. Brian > > I'm comfortable with a Homenet ULA existing in two places when equipment gets > seperated for a period of non-trivial time. For instance, I fully > anticipate having 1-2 routers in my VM camper van, and I fully expect them to > travel. {I might even bring up an explicit VPN to link stuff back together.} > I imagine that most people will expect their various conveyances, including > their (smart) backpacks to do this kind of thing. > Or taking stuff to the cottage for the summer, and bringing it back later on. > If we split up the 64K available /64s sensibly, it shouldn't be a big deal. > > I think that it's entirely reasonable that giving up the ULA when you move > equipment requires an explicit administrator action, like holding down the > FACTORY RESET button. 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 will be any systems confused by such activity. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
