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

Gert Doering <> Tue, 14 October 2014 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@Space.Net>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394F21A88DC for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.692
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZZmLEy5K4aX for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 973781A8907 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7137E60797 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37CED60765 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 16318 invoked by uid 1007); 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200
From: Gert Doering <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Message-ID: <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net>
References: <> <> <> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NHoqzdq0v3ncJ6I2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Erik Kline <>, HOMENET Working Group <>, Pierre Pfister <>, Gert Doering <>
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 14:59:58 -0000


On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gert Doering <> wrote:
> > "flash renumber is a problem" is pretty much a non-argument, as flash 
> > renumbering *will* happen, and devices in the home *will* have to handle it.
> Indeed.   The question is, should we increase the number of instances in which they are forced to handle it, or no?


Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to
handle it.

(When I first learned that T-Online was forcing this on their customers,
I was quite upset.  After thinking about it for a few weeks, I came to the
conclusion that it's the inevitable and correct approach.  If you make
the homenet renumber only "every few months", like "when the router is
offline for longer than <x> hours", people and application developers
will start assuming that IPv6 addresses are something static - and then,
when that renumbering happens, you'll get uproar and support calls.  
Force a prefix change on homenets once a week, and developers will learn 
how to cope with it, without breaking every time, requiring application / 
appliance restarts, etc)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279