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

Wuyts Carl <> Tue, 14 October 2014 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1B41A00F0 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.907
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AUc8iHlTgtei for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:715]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893021A0035 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:52:52 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:52:51 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:52:51 +0000
From: Wuyts Carl <>
To: Erik Kline <>, Pierre Pfister <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Thread-Index: AQHP54K0vE/OjWpAb0mPoL0zPh7VxpwvPjQAgAAK7TA=
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:52:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR0201MB0675;UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03648EFF89
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(24454002)(189002)(52314003)(13464003)(377454003)(51704005)(64706001)(74316001)(76176999)(54356999)(20776003)(46102003)(76482002)(66066001)(101416001)(85852003)(76576001)(99286002)(50986999)(85306004)(77096002)(99396003)(95666004)(31966008)(15975445006)(120916001)(105586002)(4396001)(21056001)(107046002)(40100003)(108616004)(19580395003)(33646002)(19580405001)(80022003)(92566001)(86362001)(106356001)(106116001)(2656002)(87936001)(122556002)(97736003)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR0201MB0675;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR0201MB0562;
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <>
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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:53:17 -0000

+1. Looking to what customers asks these days from CPE devices in IPv6 env, we should not start pushing ULA as MUST req.  It can be an option of course.


-----Original Message-----
From: homenet [] On Behalf Of Erik Kline
Sent: dinsdag 14 oktober 2014 10:13
To: Pierre Pfister
Cc: HOMENET Working Group
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

I vote no, please don't make it MUST.

Among other things, if my home edge router losing it's upstream it (in
theory) doesn't have to deprecate the global prefix in the home, just the default route.  Since I can't get to the Internet anyway, all I need is (almost) any prefix, and the one I have is as good as a ULA (if not better, since the upstream loss may just be a flap).

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Pierre Pfister <> wrote:
> Hello group,
> The architecture document states the following:
> - A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its 
> globally unique prefix(es) to allow stable communication between 
> devices [...]
> This translates into section 9.1 in the Prefix Assignment draft:
> - A router MAY spontaneously generate a ULA delegated prefix [...]
> So, that MAY should probably be a SHOULD. But the reason for this mail is one level higher:
> Question: Should the generation of a stable ULA prefix be a MUST in any case ?
> Advantages would be:
> - In the protocol design process, we could assume in-home IPv6 connectivity. No need for special case for IPv4-only connectivity, no need for special TLVs, flags, or whatever.
> - In the implementation process, it is way easier to handle one single IP version for all in-home traffic. Let it be IPv6 !
> - This connectivity would be more stable than IPv4 (which only exists when there is an IPv4 uplink). IPv6 enabled apps would therefore behave *better* than IPv4-only. Which would in the end help for transitioning.
> Disadvantages are:
> - The best (and probably only correct) way of advertising in-home ULA connectivity is using RIOs. Which some (e.g. apple's) devices don't support (yet?).
> - Some currently existing implementation may fail when facing ULA vs IPv4 choice.
> It looks to me that disadvantages will be overcome in the coming years if IETF requires implementation to handle ULAs and RIOs better.
> So the question is, should I change the Prefix Assignment draft and make ULA existence a MUST so that we/developers can rely on that in our protocol design and implementation process ?
> Cheers,
> Pierre
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list

homenet mailing list