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

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

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 different ISP
interface with prefix 2002:: and also has a different ULA prefix for a
colleciton of devices it communicates with
3)  Router A is now connected to Router B via an interface in the home
(the join case).  Obviously, one of them needs to be the owner of *the*
ULA prefix in the home and the other should stop providing its prefix.

Same scenario for the split:
1)   I have two networks that were joined with Router A and Router B
linked.  I decide to island one of my networks (for example, I have a
lighting system using Router B but discovered there has been a security
breach and I don't want it exposed to the internet through Router A).
2)   Is it clear in terms of ULA prefix generation/propagation what Router
A and Router B should be doing regarding forwarding prefix information on
their internal (and by reference external interfaces)?

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.

Don


On 10/17/14 12:59 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Don Sturek <[e-mail]> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet