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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 17 October 2014 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72931A86F2 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uHVq8w2UadTq for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB511A86EF for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.63] (c-71-201-198-58.hsd1.il.comcast.net [71.201.198.58]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46E9623802B7; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe53JCEe3B6nx20n=1674oY2qiMMCBYhABu46YS6kH-Kg3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:46:36 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0AF5E505-3D12-4E4C-8DD8-91B326D02EB8@fugue.com>
References: <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com> <C7F3DE60-F596-4BAD-9C28-74006966E5B9@fugue.com> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <69B1F2CB-88C6-4211-83F3-11C8A3E7BFD2@fugue.com> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net> <m1Xe3jL-0000I7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <C6760B68-C913-4B22-98E6-6D29A66F80D9@fugue.com> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <4E2E154E-D231-4E79-860A-56948A13CDD4@fugue.com> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <CBC8A3D9-9EBD-47FF-B066-247898FF2000@fugue.com> <543EA248.2080700@mtcc.com> <CB50B30B-DC36-4354-96B7-19AE415BD03F@fugue.com> <543EBE40.3030201@mtcc.com> <BA5ABBFA-9D13-4975-A96C-530FE958322A@fugue.com> <543ED2A7.3090409@mtcc.com> <1569644A-50C4-47B6-908E-262BC62BCD14@fugue.com> <543EFBF1.6040101@mtcc.com> <457D177C-232E-4590-A9ED-80048140157F@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr1kix0HxWsC4n7ta4EG-6YhMMdYCTnFFXGb2ATQBbkMHA@mail.gmail.com> <DCB62D43-DFD3-4985-8FAA-896CEA3BD342@fugue.com> <4D6F2B13-D63E-4FEE-A136 -B510126CC1C9@fugue.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130EA3B9A@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <1AA5DBBD-C3C5-4AFD-A043-6A69AE7FBDB9@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr3Fa7hgXZReWFgmHA9pLnH=ezHLXh-aAdA-_N=AR3AiyA@mail.gmail.com> <3F36952F-CF6A-4F21-A713-A8A7DE7BDC42@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr3eP+8qs8uMzrfOmebp+bihGed7PjWi0=8+cV4N6Dx=ww@mail.gmail.com> <8352C2EF-A888-4279-BFFF-37E204A0E2D3@fugue.com> <CADhXe53yJNA6bnnmssuG4sq0i2gyAih0LsRW64XTZ-aK7LS+tw@mail.gmail.com> <41E2A52A-C689-49A4-A480-DB9C3624E618@fugue.com> <CADhXe53JCEe3B6nx20n=1674oY2qiMMCBYhABu46YS6kH-Kg3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/FDM_YSmWCbnXYp-5JzjaVpl93BU
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:46:39 -0000

On Oct 17, 2014, at 4:41 PM, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:
> I explained why you must generate a new ULA prefix every time you commission a new network.

Yes, you did, and I believe the mechanism I proposed for handling network splits addressed the problem you described.   If you think it didn't, can you explain why not, not by expressing reasons to doubt, but by walking through specific scenarios where what I proposed wouldn't work?