Ted,
On 19/07/2018 13:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
> In order for IPv6 to be useful, you need naming to work. We had this
> discussion when I brought this up last year. It should be possible for an
> IPv6-only homenet to work. But if we want homenet to be widely adopted, I
> do not think this is the correct default behavior:
What "this" do you mean? Switching to ULAs to maintain local
connectivity? What's the surprise? There's no reason there
wouldn't be corresponding AAAA records, is there?
> it violates the
> principle of least surprise. Further, unless you prevent services from
> advertising IPv4 addresses,
We have a plan for that: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-01
Brian
> dropping the IPv4 uplink definitely will cause
> connections to hang.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:43 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> wrote:
>
>> During his talk, Ted claimed that he lost all connectivity when his uplink
>> went down. This should not happen -- HNCP normally maintains an IPv6 ULA
>> that remains stable no matter what happens to DHCPv6 prefix delegations or
>> DHCPv4 leases. This is described in Section 6.5 of RFC 7788, and it is
>> the default behaviour of hnetd.
>>
>> Either Ted had tweaked the configuration of hnetd (which one should not
>> do -- hnetd does the right thing out of the box), or he was using software
>> that doesn't speak IPv6 or ignores ULAs. At any rate, HNCP does not have
>> the issue that Ted described.
>>
>> -- Juliusz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
