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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 8BD561ACF0E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 m-nPpctf0wQE for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35FAE1ACF05 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ey11so8494356pad.27 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qkRHkrzmnV2uibuwtzJ37c1kpggzrWr+PXmx8dtziEQ=; b=Ls7kamwKEb0Mm6o1xuZJd3W4vasMg/DLMP5+uOeCsELI3M/gm4Akd+ZN7mijrGJ3uP I78gBb6DJLriXVxRt3o9KkQIltYZH0T7mVIh+M6PgFFr5vnsHjuJUinJJbrK9J38xTuu i5UNi+7EzHIM6gkXktdhP53uu81Vas61BXI+0FLDc36Kh2RA9HJSvfYnVbokpXaGUZml BkbsxzwtkzOP5IRSly98B4lPAHX/QzK8p/v+Zo8IdNkFPwvWPm55MNL/Hz1etVV5begH u8vV1joz10yXBf+89YTG7oblpFbkXVbruKiLUGXfsMvlZVhBYXaDi0+lAVM0LLSQ9ruc qQQQ==
X-Received: by 10.67.21.194 with SMTP id hm2mr6853041pad.119.1413315862883; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (75.196.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.196.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dk7sm573262pdb.8.2014.10.14.12.44.19 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <543D7D15.7010907@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:44:21 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr> <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1410141020360.30853@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C52D3324-3015-45E0-88CF-D2A778D246B8@iki.fi> <CADhXe52iH_Abh3iZvpgQQYJF_FzbKkhNwzwjkcDt-DJA3RL+VA@mail.gmail.com> <70C2B2B2-A19A-4730-AB51-1EF26448445B@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <70C2B2B2-A19A-4730-AB51-1EF26448445B@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/M-2CI976CwOQyITV5jEC5K08S10
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:44:24 -0000

On 15/10/2014 08:31, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:
>> On the topic of the original question, if I were to editorialize here, then I would want to see something like this:
> 
> I get that you have an opinion on this, but you haven't actually stated any argument to support what you think we should do.   And there are some implications in what you are saying that I don't think are necessary.
> 
>> A) An autonomously generated ULA prefix SHOULD be advertised when no other delegated prefix is valid.
> 
> OK, although underspecified.
> 
>> B) Whenever there is any valid delegated prefix, advertisements for an existing autonomously generated ULA prefix MUST be deprecated, i.e. updated with preferred lifetime of zero.
> 
> Why?   What problem does this solve?   Given that it's going to mean additional work, there should be some benefit to doing it.

At a stroke this would destroy the main advantage of ULAs - namely,
invariant addresses for internal traffic. IPv6 assumes multiple
simultaneous addresses; there is no reason whatever to artificially
prevent use of ULAs alongside GUAs.

   Brian

>> C) A deprecated autonomously generated ULA prefix MUST be withdrawn when it expires, i.e. its valid time reaches zero.
> 
> Okay, given that a prefix expires, it should be withdrawn, whether it's a ULA or a GUA.
> 
>> D) Whenever there is no longer any valid delegated prefix, advertisements for a previously deprecated autonomously generated ULA prefix MUST be updated with non-zero preferred lifetime.
> 
> OK, but seems like unnecessary work.   You're essentially recapitulating the brokenness of IPv4 zeroconf.
> 
>> The idea here is to make sure IPv6 applications can generally rely on home network interior routers to forward traffic among the multiple links in the home, regardless of whether any first-mile Internet services are provisioned, configured and operational, i.e. there shall always be at least one preferred global scope network prefix, and there shall be an autonomously generated local prefix available as a last resort whenever there are no valid delegated prefixes.
> 
> This is where I am just completely puzzled.   We talked about this previously.   I thought the idea was that the homenet ULA should converge: that there should only be one, ultimately, and that when there are two, routing should still work.  You are stating this as if the ULAs are per-subnet of a homenet, and that routing across homenet routers using ULAs isn't supported.
> 
> If you really think that's how this should work, I can see why you want to deprecate them.   But that's not how they should work.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>