IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 15 October 2014 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 54FBD1A017A for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] 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 czRpx2pfN988 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C59821A0072 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 131EFA1; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:48:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1413366530; bh=+7Oc+icKngVsrgTjAN2RjCF0xQNcmY1dRSXOJLehOEY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vMqKB0NU+wW+2jewkDPVbBuBaUG0BPEQiTcQOhcxxk/1E7Ac2YXuv0LD5gGhvO5cO dvaE+cqVkbd5rtSeGo/+lyzysPQSppht7Gz2o/JgzLTAQfvTqcXTFqxDvd86MY80au J1C6bn0i2dBlo6cimJBFsAhFpqVFfJak2OTo/BW8=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081619F; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:48:50 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:48:49 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <5E43B678-A2F9-4289-93E9-A6A98BEE82A1@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1410151112180.30853@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr> <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> <7D59D80C-2BF0-428B-A872-B2922B2D0F98@fugue.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1410142043200.30853@uplift.swm.pp.se> <48942796-C098-48B6-B894-544499EEB5F3@fugue.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1410150657030.30853@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5E43B678-A2F9-4289-93E9-A6A98BEE82A1@iki.fi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/IWnmDHQK4VSKOTy0krAcLUBOcKM
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:48:53 -0000

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Markus Stenberg wrote:

> Every time I hear about ISP-forced customer renumberings, the more I 
> start to think that 1+ ULA prefixes per home is a MUST, not a SHOULD.

For me this isn't just about ISP-forced customer renumberings, but to also 
handle power outages, equipment malfunction (so you lose your lease), 
equipment change, ISP change, and all other things that today will make 
you change the IPv4 address a few times a year or something.

I believe we should use SHIM6, MP-TCP, "mosh" and other similar techniques 
to make sure that we can move sessions around when doing renumbering.

IPv6 has the infrastructure on L3 to handle renumbering gracefully, now we 
just need L4 and applications to get with the program as well. I would 
really like to see us go in the way of IP addresses not being the single 
anchorpoint of all communication, we need to make sure that we have other 
mechanisms such as L4 protocols being "agile" when it comes to IP address 
change over time, and also having DNS or other mechanism being able to be 
updated with information over time to enable this mobility.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email