Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 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

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 wrote: > >> See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my backyard > trapeze watching > >> the flying wallendas instructi

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Michael Thomas 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, presumably you

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On 10/15/14, 4:06 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 15, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Michael Thomas 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

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Michael Thomas 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 works and h

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas 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 co

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas 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

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On 10/15/14, 1:28 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Thomas > 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

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Thomas 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 recommend tra

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 watchin

[homenet] On renumbering [was: Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?]

On 15/10/2014 22:48, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > 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 renu

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Michael Thomas 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 forth betwee

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On 10/15/2014 10:50 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 15, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Michael Thomas 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' homenets are a single

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Michael Thomas 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' homenets are a single homenet, in which case life is good. _

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sander Steffann 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 join. Now > con

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 th

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On 10/15/2014 09:28 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Gert Doering 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 l

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Gert Doering 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 to cause disru

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Hi Ralph, >> In particular, you appear to be arguing as if ULAs and GUAs are treated >> identically by IPv6 stacks, but they are not. > > Really? In what way are they not treated identically by IPv6 stacks? ULA space does have a separate entry in the policy table of RFC 6724 (https://tools.ie

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Ted - you wrote something that surprised me (in line)... On Oct 15, 2014, at 11:34 AM 10/15/14, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering wrote: >> I explained my reasoning. Multiple times. Here and on other lists. Again >> and again. > > When you repeat yourself again a

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 a

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Hi, On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:34:17AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering 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. Well,

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 wor

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering 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 document contains t

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21:12AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Gert Doering 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, G

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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"...? Pleas

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

> On 15.10.2014, at 7.58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> Just to be clear, I am against flash renumbering, I want to see renumbering >> done with 30-60 minute overlap at least. I however do see that we really >> really need to support renumbering. One way of making sure that support >> works is t

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 conti

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

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 mal

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On 15.10.2014, at 7.58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Right. This is IPv4. In IPv4 we typically use a NAT on the local wire, so >> we get the effect we are trying to achieve either by retaining stale GUAs or >> using ULAs on the local wire in homenets. I