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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 17 October 2014 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 E3ED11A1B55 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 hiUAfk6sHlpy for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629451A1B4A for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.63] (c-71-201-198-58.hsd1.il.comcast.net [71.201.198.58]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B10C238050E; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:30:24 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0J=zAk_XvgigjJiLTbMoT-SOWTewf0-C+om79P+FNvKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:30:20 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C8A4A13E-17B5-4307-B08C-F01DE04C50C5@fugue.com>
References: <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> <m1Xe3jL-0000I7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <C6760B68-C913-4B22-98E6-6D29A66F80D9@fugue.com> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <4E2E154E-D231-4E79-860A-56948A13CDD4@fugue.com> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <CBC8A3D9-9EBD-47FF-B066-247898FF2000@fugue.com> <543EA248.2080700@mtcc.com> <CB50B30B-DC36-4354-96B7-19AE415BD03F@fugue.com> <543EBE40.3030201@mtcc.com> <BA5ABBFA-9D13-4975-A96C-530FE958322A@fugue.com> <543ED2A7.3090409@mtcc.com> <1569644A-50C4-47B6-908E-262BC62BCD14@fugue.com> <543EFBF1.6040101@mtcc.com> <457D177C-232E-4590-A9ED-80048140157F@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr1kix0HxWsC4n7ta4EG-6YhMMdYCTnFFXGb2ATQBbkMHA@mail.gmail.com> <DCB62D43-DFD3-4985-8FAA-896CEA3BD342@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr1rpFeZuy=nXFSj+d pa749RhJJ2j9+U=cmFq_4cCsC_4g@mail.gmail.com> <4D6F2B13-D63E-4FEE-A136-B510126CC1C9@fugue.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130EA3B9A@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <1AA5DBBD-C3C5-4AFD-A043-6A69AE7FBDB9@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr3Fa7hgXZReWFgmHA9pLnH=ezHLXh-aAdA-_N=AR3AiyA@mail.gmail.com> <3F36952F-CF6A-4F21-A713-A8A7DE7BDC42@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr3eP+8qs8uMzrfOmebp+bihGed7PjWi0=8+cV4N6Dx=ww@mail.gmail.com> <8352C2EF-A888-4279-BFFF-37E204A0E2D3@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr0J=zAk_XvgigjJiLTbMoT-SOWTewf0-C+om79P+FNvKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PPlb68UIRRZlr9MakZMSARxP2Mo
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:30:27 -0000

On Oct 17, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> But you're saying you want ULAs because you want to continue to do what you were doing yesterday: persistent connections, like SSH and X-windows. I think you're trying to fix the problem at the wrong layer. But I don't expect we'll agree with me on that.

The current IP architecture effectively assumes that this gets fixed on layer 3.   I agree that this is a problem, but since we don't have a real layer 4 solution, I think it's worth making sure that we make things as stable as we can at layer 3.   This does not preclude working on a solution at layer 4.   Indeed, there are several people here who think that's important; perhaps you should put your heads together.   Nothing gets done until someone does it.   But beware: several ships have foundered against these rocks already.