Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line. On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or > GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic > between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home > network); ULA only becomes useful if routing is involved which is not > the typical deployment for the home. The assumption in homenet is that it will become so. > ULA is useful, on the other hand, if NPT is used. NPT is not NAT, and > doesn't have any of the nastiness of NAT. Well, you still have address rewriting, but prefix-based. > I think a lot of the question has to do with what the role of CPE will > be going forward. As long as we're talking dual-stack, having > operational consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 makes sense. If it's an > IPv6-only environment, then things become a lot more flexible (do we > even need CPE to include a firewall, or do we say host-based firewalls > are sufficient, for example). The initial assumption in homenet is a stateful firewall with hosts inside the homenet using PCP or something similar. Tim