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

Don Sturek <> Fri, 17 October 2014 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832D71A1BB0 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.506
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.506 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, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL=2.511, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTFoAzN2wplz for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00BB81A1BBE for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1413562417; bh=EeAdXPh8/nsRMivRIPNgcpBQ883I349OlswkCeQvAjo=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=yH7fYjtuqImtNSByOV1rvPfpPJYXnnSzoxpw1KPVSdP6+O9UwL+2a4ik9t4E6W9S3NJgCuH2/eCQ6YIQbPbRQ4HNfW+gU+r9Z5T4BUDVePzF3e1f0t0DT7/5OYDGmZBY6nea9dHEl4GCs0NC8jGqmfsbb05561jlB6yXhAmrG/k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; b=4QL1wXX/HTewWqhz4p8u98/VyLky6Z8cyzMwzoS+6U/yVx6Sq1XW9RfuEwtxB2BT12ILNSXdOtLTLoVXMNmaCanLRCt0CIHSuVuqyy+RVAHRuO2AHuzP3+5tJyNwT64HiFuoFildarBGRh+p/Kw4vUlNlGVcBLFApZL3w3D+T0A=;
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2014 16:13:37 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2014 16:13:37 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2014 16:13:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1413562417; bh=EeAdXPh8/nsRMivRIPNgcpBQ883I349OlswkCeQvAjo=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=VwC/Zln2/qrXSjSaPImH1KvkhMX87I8n8tyVqhwa8h3QGFFM2T6/dLMBesHxPISXFz9fNRlbAHa2zPxVyt2lv6oJHhU3quVTILTKzfFUwa2lp3MyJmksgwuZIBKS5pRqJvXNNMj+n2znLf+Ao+CPFo3W2OsByX9oLglbebXo71w=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: LaGVJskVM1m2lMdRbmijIPEZ5tKUd7TXrYSQeri1kms1oMk qM1AQn6qRCuG.jm4BBD3NOAIEb0ZLbP633UH6R.QqfjEI4Bx3sCzyFr_BFLN PyMnM5RhvzcMukimS.dnMT4_MAzjT.UvtxnekvYUa0NNUzsT0KDk2neagivi fBSjowpRLKIpR9wFhp7cX7trK.yGWA8rO.cPGjegkkz0m4sgnMAll9NolYwh UPElQWhXLASvdyML88Jbd7vfnfPSEUUdBNo2agcnKtpkMIi7BlLBPsvIK_5j UDY0Fko9iEftpblE8HjBPoHzE5_Ez.F4ACoEh5fslqz7d5rwPo2.L_x4wYpm RvP7qDFF3uqWsCCAf6DWrPwxoGM1nJSIDP.x5RX3f8ooknS8IexOb5SQKegd Y.RNk1XVMltephkfHHlCXgcQPZ2j1c1siKGbKcLRTjO7CfqiIQTJPQk1e0Ln 1Q2u3NDDIr7cYDpRP0_CmubO.QTGFRhT440Ihfg1C3CKhkSQeZwizyUgzEnO oHbM59swtNmE7h99ob_T9kXmRJ3uO67VU4ZBjfW8K
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:10:51 -0700
From: Don Sturek <>
To: Ted Lemon <>, Michael Richardson <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
References: <> <> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, Michael Thomas <>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <>, Lorenzo Colitti <>
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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:13:41 -0000

Hi Ted and Michael,

What this home network join/split topic with respect to ULA's is a draft
that targets becoming at least Informational.

I think several of these e-mails have hit on the problem, I don't see any
existing I-D's or RFCs that solve the problem.


On 10/17/14 9:03 AM, "Ted Lemon" <> wrote:

>On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Michael Richardson <>
>> I will go back and read James' message about joins and splits.
>> It seems that we have this problem with GUAs as well, and it seems that
>> the whole address selection issue exists without ULAs, as long as one
>> multiple ISPs.
>The issue with joins and splits is that you would like your numbering to
>survive a temporary network partition, but to not survive a permanent
>network partition.   I think this problem is solvable, and have some
>ideas about how to do it, which are half-baked and probably won't work
>without tweaking.
>E.g., when a homenet chooses a ULA, it could divide the /64s evenly
>between all of the participating homenet routers.   If there's a
>partition, the homenet routers get to keep the /64s they got to begin
>with, but if after some period of time (TBD) the partition hasn't healed,
>one of them (chosen back when the network wasn't partitioned) begins a
>transition to a new randomly-chosen ULA.   If new routers are added to a
>homenet, HNCP should be able to balance out the pool of free /64s so that
>every router has some to keep during a partition.
>If two homenets each with their own ULA are joined, one of the ULAs is
>deprecated with a long tail.   It would also be worth factoring
>power-cycling into this: if a homenet router that had a ULA is powered
>off, then powered back on, connected to a new homenet, its ULA is
>probably the one that should be deprecated.   This will still fail in the
>case that there are devices that are still using the prefix, but I think
>we're now down in the really unlikely scenarios that we don't have to
>homenet mailing list