Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs
Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Wed, 28 March 2012 07:44 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 3AE9321F8810 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FYTz-cghY5gL for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA2921F881F for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3763C8700EF; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:44:07 +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 iUqlRXZj2OwQ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:44:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Rays-iMac.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F278A8700EE; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:44:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F72C141.6000202@globis.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:44:01 +0200
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox Express 1.0.1 (Macintosh/20100705)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
References: <061.66eb0dbed3a33f6365b2a21998665ed1@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4F6BAC9F.10903@gmail.com> <CAA93jw7YPvdeDXLhDtmMbcpr-mdcx7WszZH-00UAKgyG3=zTqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7YPvdeDXLhDtmMbcpr-mdcx7WszZH-00UAKgyG3=zTqg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020906010307090102040302"
Cc: Anders Brandt <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 28 Mar 2012 07:44:10 -0000
See below. Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 2012-03-22 12:33, homenet issue tracker wrote: > > #4: Use of ULAs > > > > CN1 in the -02 text says ULAs should be provisioned by default. > Do we > > agree? > > Yes, by the CER (MUST). > Firstly are we stating *the* CER or *a* CER? What happens when there is more than one CER? Does that then need an election process? And when the "winner" disappears because you've changed providers or router hardware or the router fails, all ULA's also get renumbered? > > It's much less clear for all other routers on site. I would prefer > that > no other router provisions a ULA prefix if the CER has already > delegated > one. > > > Since it is nearly impossible to learn a subnet prefix that is unused > unless all devices share a routing protocol, I have generally > preferred to generate unique ULAs per routing device. > Generating a ULA independently per router is potentially going to bring problems with the new RFC3484-revise as they'll almost certainly have different Global ID's (and thus a different /48 prefix), so ULA will not be preferred for communication between nodes connected to different routers. Sometimes it's useful to take a complete opposite view to the way you've been thinking, and work though the consequences. What about going to the extreme and giving up on central/coordinated control of a single ULA /48 Global ID throughout the Homenet? What about tolerating static prefix assignments (for sensor networks)? We allow static individual IPv6 address assignments to end nodes as well as SLAAC, so why not tolerate statically assigned /64 prefixes? Even in Appletalk, the much vaunted champion of autoconfiguration, a network manager had to manually assign the network number range to at least one seed router in an extended network. How about: - multiple ULA /48 Global ID's within a single Homenet is not considered an "error" Every router may generate it's own ULA /48 Global ID independently, or use an existing one generated by another router. That gets rid of any time-ordering of installation, net splitting or net fusing issues. Also allows the electrician to set up his sensor network before the ISP arrives (or vice versa) - routers should configure up one /64 prefix per interface for each ULA /48 Global ID present in the Homenet. This could use the same prefix assignment mechanism as PA addresses learned via DHCPv6 PD from the ISP. Each router could perhaps act as the seed router for its own ULA /48 Global ID in the prefix assignment process. All of the ULA /48 Global ID's would be distributed throughout the complete Homenet network, so that if a router is added to the Homenet it may be an additional/new ULA /48 Global ID in the Homenet network, but the original ULA /64 prefixes derived from other routers' ULA /48 Global ID's will still be available on all interfaces. That copes with mobile nodes and routers that are bought and sold. It also copes with failure of a single "master" router. - every end node and router using RFC3484-revise should also configure up a ULA address for every ULA /64 prefix present. Dumb sensors may simply ignore 3484-revise (it's only informational) and always prefer ULA. End nodes using 3484-revise would now have a native ULA address from each ULA /48 Global ID, and therefore the proposed new rule in RFC3484-revise of source /48 ULA = destination /48 ULA would come into play and ULA would always be preferred for local communications. You may end up with two or more usable ULA pairs between any two nodes, but is that a problem when we want high availability, and provider independence? - prefix assignment autoconfiguration should avoid assigning prefixes that conflict with statically configured prefixes (e.g. hard coded sensor networks). That may require changing the tie-break mechanism in e.g. draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment-01 so that a router with a static /64 prefix assignment can veto all other routers who (accidentally) try to auto-assign the same /64 and thus cause a collision. So it would be the equivalent of Duplicate Address Detection, but at the /64 prefix level. OK each end node and router would have lots of prefixes and addresses (possibly two or more per router in the homenet) but isn't that less problematic than trying to centrally gather the ULA /48 Global ID's in use and then distribute an updated RFC3484-revise policy table to all end nodes, or magically electing a master node to coordinate the choice of a single ULA /48 Global ID? regards, RayH
- [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs homenet issue tracker
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Ray Hunter
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Jari Arkko
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Dave Taht
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Dave Taht
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Thomas Herbst
- [homenet] home networking of a different kind Jari Arkko
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Ray Bellis
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Thomas Herbst
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs - issues with RFC41… Jim Gettys
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Cameron Byrne
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Ray Hunter
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Dave Taht
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Ray Hunter
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs Michael Richardson
- Re: [homenet] home networking of a different kind David R Oran