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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 15 October 2014 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16921A87EC for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PkHOF_x2MzaN for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E06B1A87EB for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8ADC82381535; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:34:17 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <>, Philip Homburg <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:34:21 -0000

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 the results of that consensus.   If you have some additional objection to raise, you should raise it, but I'm very sorry, you do have to show your work.   You can't just make assertions about what you think is true, and expect your opinion to count in the consensus call.   We don't vote in the IETF, so opinions just don't make sense in that context.

In particular, you appear to be arguing as if ULAs and GUAs are treated identically by IPv6 stacks, but they are not.   So while I agree that there is a real problem making this work for multi-homed homenets (a problem, by the way, which homenet has decided to try to solve), this is completely orthogonal to the question of whether we should use ULAs in the homenet.