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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 14 October 2014 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC51C1A8779 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.693
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tiWh-nXWk7_H for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68131A8704 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 06:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA4DE2380423; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:44:03 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Erik Kline <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <>, Pierre Pfister <>
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 13:44:08 -0000

On Oct 14, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Erik Kline <> wrote:
> 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).

This is something we discussed at length back when we were doing the architecture document.   The problem with this approach is that it exposes you to flash renumbering when you get back online, or if you can't do flash renumbering, you could easily find yourself without connectivity because you are using the wrong source address.   Deprecating the global address when upstream connectivity goes away, and preferring the ULA for local communication, addresses this problem.   So I think that we need to have a really clear argument _against_ using ULAs to solve this problem in order for what you are saying to be true, and I don't remember that being an outcome of the previous discussion.

So while I am not sure I agree with Pierre's conclusion, I think his reasoning is pretty sound.