Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

"Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net> Sat, 14 May 2016 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B87812D109 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 May 2016 05:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F3lRCvVoh0Qp for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 May 2016 05:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (mail.globis.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f15:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B0112B05F for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 May 2016 05:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE7B4034B; Sat, 14 May 2016 14:51:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at globis01.globis.net
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRmK6wAT0PJe; Sat, 14 May 2016 14:51:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.local (178-84-244-32.dynamic.upc.nl [178.84.244.32]) (Authenticated sender: v6ops@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3D7DD4000F; Sat, 14 May 2016 14:51:46 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <57371F60.6060605@globis.net>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 14:51:44 +0200
From: "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <6E709688-414A-4AFB-AEAE-56BAE0469583@coote.org> <56DB4264-1769-443A-86F2-BB0BE0ED9693@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|87dc38b1e390496e02166dafe2490d8as44D0U03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|56DB4264-1769-443A-86F2-BB0BE0ED9693@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <57333B3F.7000009@globis.net> <CC759790-4F9B-47B8-A42C-A85F78AC9773@jisc.ac.uk> <57335AB6.8060305@globis.net> <87mvnwh81u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nu98pXdDzVgZ2yW7xe8mwA=O+zmoGS8XLs_NLbNUaKFQ@mail.gmail.com> <57337274.1040000@globis.net> <CAPt1N1=mVBM-Dyg50eAv4Lz4XK1Hfe1SgHH5osR9fuhJhc0DWQ@mail.gmail.com> <57344249.8070907@globis.net> <874ma3s9pc.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <57348817.1090200@globis.net> <CAPt1N1nWJJx_38Z_G8085w3Kwnd=_6gX3FBLjFMQcDm9sTdFtQ@mail.gmail.com> <5735B02D.8080304@globis.net> <CAPt1N1kAks=pAF-rcHRGWFbWLgWN5qEPZK+-6=c4VeZRi5VHcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1m96gpEz4GXrpr+eA3OjQyhQfbAACyi83noYovE1WSx7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nkCRG6S2QJ9KqzhTrneN3SpnEQ8vWZO4f4gWwT9g-+dA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nkCRG6S2QJ9KqzhTrneN3SpnEQ8vWZO4f4gWwT9g-+dA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080803010801060107080503"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/BTzyZUUaCZBGzqR4qJxo-yB0iTg>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 12:51:52 -0000


Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> If devices publish keys, then you can use those keys to make sure you 
> are still talking to them. And the dnssec validation of local names 
> would also work. Graceful renumbering should indeed result in DNS 
> updates. Bear in mind that this is graceful, so the old and new ULAs 
> coexist for a while.
>

Sounds good.

So can we assume

1) a single ULA namespace for resolving all active ULAs, that will 
eventually converge to only containing RRs from a single ULA?

2) And that ULA namespace is disjoint from/completely independent of any 
GUA namespace?


> On May 13, 2016 06:45, "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net 
> <mailto:v6ops@globis.net>> wrote:
>
>
>>     Ted Lemon <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>
>>     12 May 2016 15:48
>>     As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside
>>     to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you
>>     ultimately wind up with.
>>
>     So are you suggesting the Homenet (internal) namespace should be
>     independent of ULA address space?
>
>     In which case
>
>     1) how do we avoid the ".local" security problem where mobile
>     devices are unable to distinguish whether they've actually moved
>     to a different Homenet, or whether they've stayed still and their
>     own Homenet has just renumbered.
>
>     Or else
>
>     2) Does the renumbering mechanism also trigger an automatic
>     renaming too?
>
>     -- 
>     regards,
>     RayH
>     <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
>

-- 
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>