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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

James Woodyatt <[e-mail]> 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"
    > recommendation come from? And if it's only a recommendation and not a
    > requirement, then it still matters, right? I don't see that we can
    > meaningfully make it a requirement, and I would advise against
    > attempting to make it a recommendation. I don't believe such a
    > recommendation will be followed.

I won't mince words, "recommendation"/"requirement"/"potato"/etc..  I think
it's a very strong SHOULD, the only reason for someone to do otherwise would
by explicit geek-administator action.  Manually configuring a VPN for example.

It's not saying that ULA can never be routed by consenting adults, it's
saying that the Homenet ULA SHOULD never be routed outside that homenet.

Where it comes from; from the architecture document, I hope.
I'm pretty sure we said that somewhere, but I'll have to go search for the
specific statement.

I'm comfortable with a Homenet ULA existing in two places when equipment gets
seperated for a period of non-trivial time.   For instance, I fully
anticipate having 1-2 routers in my VM camper van, and I fully expect them to
travel.  {I might even bring up an explicit VPN to link stuff back together.}
I imagine that most people will expect their various conveyances, including
their (smart) backpacks to do this kind of thing.
Or taking stuff to the cottage for the summer, and bringing it back later on.
If we split up the 64K available /64s sensibly, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I think that it's entirely reasonable that giving up the ULA when you move
equipment requires an explicit administrator action, like holding down the
FACTORY RESET button.  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 systems confused by such activity.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-