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

Michael, On 23/10/2014 07:04, Michael Richardson wrote: > James Woodyatt 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_. > >> >

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

On Oct 22, 2014, at 5:00 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > My point is that it doesn't need to be done that way unless HOMENET forces > that design choice. The scenario you are describing sounds like it's secondary. Yes, it's a valid use case, but homenets working right is a use case that will see

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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > > They may often be the only *default* routers, but there can be— and > absolutely definitely will be in the vast majority of cases— overlay > networks that route ULA prefixes to, from and m

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

On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > They may often be the only *default* routers, but there can be— and > absolutely definitely will be in the vast majority of cases— overlay networks > that route ULA prefixes to, from and most likely *between* home networks over > tunnels. We

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

On 22.10.2014, at 20.51, James Woodyatt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Markus Stenberg > wrote: > 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?

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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > James Woodyatt 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_. >

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

On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > 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 sy

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

James Woodyatt 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"

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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Markus Stenberg 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"

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

TL;DR: I do not understand the reason for new text, and would vote against it. I am probably being thick, but I can see three cases of ULAs in home network: [1] something not from HNCP (e.g. from ISP, from some IoT gateway device, configuration, ..) that are essentially static from HNCP point of

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

Pierre Pfister wrote: > 9.1.2. Advertising a ULA prefix >A router MAY start advertising a ULA prefix whenever the two > following conditions are met: >o It is the network leader. >o There is no other advertised ULA prefix. I am concerned about this part. Cons

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

Hello, I tried to make a proposal which would deal with these network splits. Even though I must say that the PA draft in the first place did not cause any problem when network splits and joins later (collisions are dealt with). This adds quite a bunch of complexity, and provides the conceptuall

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

On Oct 20, 2014, at 4:52 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > I did read what you wrote, and I do not agree that you are taking into > account my concerns. Nevertheless, I shall stop arguing my case, and I will > accept that I've lost it. I persist in thinking that we are failing to communicate, but i

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

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > Yes, I read your explanation, and the solution I proposed takes it into > account. Please stop arguing to win and actually read what I wrote. > I did read what you wrote, and I do not agree that you are taking into account my concerns. Nev

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

On Oct 20, 2014, at 4:24 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > Did you respond to my previous criticism of this idea? If so, then I missed > it. It's not a good idea to commission a new standalone network with the same > ULA as a previously commissioned network, because it destroys the main > property of

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

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:00 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > > Okay... except it seems you're admitting that my scenario where a simple > reconfiguration of a network topology, e.g. one caused by an intermittent > RF interference on an unlicensed band

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

On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:00 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > Okay... except it seems you're admitting that my scenario where a simple > reconfiguration of a network topology, e.g. one caused by an intermittent RF > interference on an unlicensed band of the radio spectrum, would result in a > fully regu

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > [...] before the network partitions, divide the ULA into 64k /64 prefixes, > and distribute these evenly among attached routers. Routers other than > the ones that own a particular /64 are not allowed ever to use that /64 > unless the router t

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

On Oct 18, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > To clarify, yes, when the ULA is generated you have to do this, but you may > revisit the decision subsequently, prior to partition. You don't know when > partition happens, but that doesn't preclude making new choices later. > E.g., if you on

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I did explain how to do that: before the network partitions, > > That seems to imply that you know in advance that the network > will partition. I assume that it will usually be a surprise. > Normally there is no human manager, although

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

Ted, On 18/10/2014 11:37, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:16 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: >> p1. It looks like you agree that locally generate ULA prefixes should be >> allowed to expire. What I don't see is any conceptual outline for deciding, >> in a distributed methodology, which prefi

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:16 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > p1. It looks like you agree that locally generate ULA prefixes should be > allowed to expire. What I don't see is any conceptual outline for deciding, > in a distributed methodology, which prefixes to renew and which to release > when their v

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

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > > But there is a problem with only deprecating prefixes without expiring > them. If they never expire, then they accumulate without limit within > existing networks as they join with newly co

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 4:41 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > I explained why you must generate a new ULA prefix every time you commission > a new network. Yes, you did, and I believe the mechanism I proposed for handling network splits addressed the problem you described. If you think it didn't, can

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:49 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > > As I recall, the proposals in your response were less than concrete and > didn't solve the problems. In particular, I remain curious about how to > expire the locally generated ULA prefixe

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > Maybe this would be covered by the splits/joins topic but it does seem > like ULA propagation changes in addition to the renumbering of the devices > in the home using ULA prefixes. I already covered both of those scenarios in a previous message.

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

Hi Ted, Here is the scenario that I am thinking might not be covered: 1) Router A (say your internet service provider) has an ISP interface with prefix 2001:: then has a ULA prefix for devices it is currently communicating with 2) Router B (in the same home connected via cellular) has a differen

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > How would a router know the boundary for dissemination of ULA prefixes? Isn't that the same boundary as the homenet boundary? I think we already solve that problem. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@i

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

are connected from day 1 but it is less than clear when merging two or more networks in your home (or attempting to split the networks) Don From: James Woodyatt Date: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:49 PM To: HOMENET Working Group Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:49 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > As I recall, the proposals in your response were less than concrete and > didn't solve the problems. In particular, I remain curious about how to > expire the locally generated ULA prefixes that accumulate over repeated > network joins and sp

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > > Oh, ULAs and stable addressing sound good on paper, sure. But as soon as > you actually try to use them, then suddenly there are a boatload of > scenarios that you need to deal with like

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

Hi Ted and Michael, What this home network join/split topic with respect to ULA's is a draft that targets becoming at least Informational. I think several of these e-mails have hit on the problem, I don't see any existing I-D's or RFCs that solve the problem. Don On 10/17/14 9:03 AM, "Ted Lemo

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > I will go back and read James' message about joins and splits. > It seems that we have this problem with GUAs as well, and it seems that > the whole address selection issue exists without ULAs, as long as one has > multiple ISPs. The issue

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

Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> I think that we should design our protocols to work independent of >> what prognostications we are able to make about what users might do >> today, rather than making decisions that will ensure that certain >> perfectly valid uses of the network will fail

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > In my mind, the kind of reason for a CPE device *NOT* to offer a ULA is > because > the administrator typed in their own (provider independant) GUA over the ULA. Good point. ___ homenet mailing

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

Ted Lemon wrote: > So this is why I am arguing that homenets SHOULD have ULAs, and why > Markus is arguing that they MUST. We really do want hosts to prefer > the ULA if they can use it, and we really do want to always have a ULA. > Hosts that are communicating on intra-homenet s

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > But you're saying you want ULAs because you want to continue to do what you > were doing yesterday: persistent connections, like SSH and X-windows. I think > you're trying to fix the problem at the wrong layer. But I don't expect we'll > agr

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Yes (but again, it won't be killed by the renumbering; it will be killed > *when its source address expires*). But I really doubt that real users have > long-lived connections from apps that don't reconnect on failure. Geeks like > us might,

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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > You keep mentioning this, but you're incorrect. Even if the ISP > flash-renumbers, hosts will not lower the lifetime of their IP addresses > below 2 hours, per RFC 4862. You are technically correct, and I will admit to having gone slightly i

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

traffic, but imho, not that big overhead and only local traffic From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti Sent: donderdag 16 oktober 2014 16:19 To: Ted Lemon Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Michael Thomas Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a

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

Hi, > Op 16 okt. 2014, om 15:22 heeft Lorenzo Colitti het > volgende geschreven: > > Per the table in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724#section-2.1 it will pick > the GUA as a destination address, and per Rule 6, it will choose the GUA to > connect to it. Do you know if anything implements

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

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: Deprecated addresses can still be used until their valid lifetime expires. Ok, got it. It won't be used for new connections if there is something around with a non-zero preferred lifetime, but old ones within the home will still work. Check. -- M

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

Hello Mikael, Le 17 oct. 2014 à 08:45, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : > On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > >> You keep mentioning this, but you're incorrect. Even if the ISP >> flash-renumbers, hosts will not lower the lifetime of their IP addresses >> below 2 hours, per RFC 4862. >

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

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: You keep mentioning this, but you're incorrect. Even if the ISP flash-renumbers, hosts will not lower the lifetime of their IP addresses below 2 hours, per RFC 4862. Where in RFC4862 is this described? A lot of time was spent on RF7084 and its pred

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:39 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > I think support for receiving more specific routes in RA messages (RFC 4191) > would be easier to get hosts to implement than DHCPv6. This wouldn't help, because there's nothing to differentiate the GUA from the ULA. > In any case, I thin

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

> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That > seems pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP > implementation works that way. > > How do they work, then? And why would you describe this as expensi

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That seems > pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP implementation works > that way. How do they work, then? And why would you describe this as expensive?

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 10:18 AM 10/16/14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > Um, no? Why would it? > > Because that's an indication that there is new information to be had. > > So every time a ne

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Um, no? Why would it? Because that's an indication that there is new information to be had. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > And when your ISP renumbers you, or a new ULA joins the network, you're going > to tell the hosts about the new prefix policy using what type of packet? > There's no reconfigure in stateless DHCPv6. Wouldn't the host do a DHCP Information Re

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

>> Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to >> talk to your jukebox when you are on your neighbor's network and the ULA to >> talk to it when you are on your own. > No, it won't. It will pick GUA->GUA both times. > Per the table in http://tools.ietf.org/html

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Ted, you're going in circles here. You've been arguing for many messages that > we should use ULAs because GUAs can be flash renumbered. And now you provide > an example of an event that *is* a flash renumbering, and then proceed to say > th

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

In message , Lorenzo Colitti write s: > --20cf303dd7088da2c005058a23d9 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to > > talk to your jukebox when you are on

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

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to > talk to your jukebox when you are on your neighbor's network and the ULA > to talk to it when you are on your own. > No, it won't. It will pick GUA->GUA both time

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

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for > local communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered, Actually, they can't. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.5.3 paragraph e) 3. _

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

On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:14 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > What I most worry about is for instance SSH. Mikael, I think we have strayed sufficiently far off the topic that it is harmful for us to continue discussing it on the homenet mailing list. I agree with you that better presentation layer

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

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 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

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

Le 16/10/2014 00:49, Ted Lemon a écrit : 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 con

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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Tero Kivinen wrote: My ssh connections are usually up and running for ever. They only go down when I update my firewall, there is network problems, or our company firewall is reset for some reason. Usually that means the ssh connection is up for few months... I would be ve

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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Ted Lemon wrote: minutes is too short, because that will break for example a movie stream. But a 30-60 minute overlap will work fine for web browsing and nearly all applications a typical end-user uses other than long movies. I'd say a lot of the "movie" applications wil

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

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

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

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. IPv4 also does not provide graceful renumbering, so if the I

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

On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:09 PM, James Woodyatt 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 > consider what happen

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

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 continually losing and rega

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

On Oct 14, 2014, at 6:05 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > p2. I do think a locally generated ULA prefix should not be renewed, i.e. it > should be allowed to expire, when there is *any* prefix delegated [GUA or > ULA]. Also when additional locally generated ULA prefixes are present after > a networ

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

James Woodyatt wrote: > A) An autonomously generated ULA prefix SHOULD be advertised when no > other delegated prefix is valid. I think most people agree about this. > B) Whenever there is any valid delegated prefix, advertisements for an > existing autonomously generated ULA pr

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

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:40 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> >> When we talked about this previously, I think the idea was that when two >> networks with two sets of ULA prefixes merge, you deprecate one of them. >> [...] > > > Naturally, you de

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

On Oct 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > But there is a problem with only deprecating prefixes without expiring them. > If they never expire, then they accumulate without limit within existing > networks as they join with newly commissioned networks over the course of > their lifeti

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

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > I don't think the objective is for the ULA prefix to be invariant. It's > for the availability of a ULA prefix to be dependable, and for flash > renumbering to be avoided whenever possible. So there's no problem with > deprecating a ULA wh

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

On Oct 14, 2014, at 4:40 PM, James Woodyatt wrote: > Naturally, you deprecate one of them, but my concern is that they never > expire if the objective is for a ULA prefix to be invariant. So how many > times can a network join with others before it runs out of space for > deprecated and redunda

  1   2   >