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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

On 23/10/2014 07:04, Michael Richardson wrote:
> James Woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> My assertion:
>     >>
>     >> Given HNCP generated one spans whole administrative domain, _and_
>     >> should not have routing anywhere outside it, it’s uniqueness does not
>     >> _matter_.
>     >>
> 
>     > Wait. Where did this "and should not be routable anywhere outside"
>     > recommendation come from? And if it's only a recommendation and not a
>     > requirement, then it still matters, right? I don't see that we can
>     > meaningfully make it a requirement, and I would advise against
>     > attempting to make it a recommendation. I don't believe such a
>     > recommendation will be followed.
> 
> I won't mince words, "recommendation"/"requirement"/"potato"/etc..  I think
> it's a very strong SHOULD, the only reason for someone to do otherwise would
> by explicit geek-administator action.  Manually configuring a VPN for example.
> 
> It's not saying that ULA can never be routed by consenting adults, it's
> saying that the Homenet ULA SHOULD never be routed outside that homenet.
> 
> Where it comes from; from the architecture document, I hope.
> I'm pretty sure we said that somewhere, but I'll have to go search for the
> specific statement.

You may be thinking of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193#section-4,
if we equate "site" to "homenet". I just re-read it and it all still
seems right to me. It doesn't discuss network splits, however, and
that is not a theoretical issue in homenets.

   Brian

> 
> I'm comfortable with a Homenet ULA existing in two places when equipment gets
> seperated for a period of non-trivial time.   For instance, I fully
> anticipate having 1-2 routers in my VM camper van, and I fully expect them to
> travel.  {I might even bring up an explicit VPN to link stuff back together.}
> I imagine that most people will expect their various conveyances, including
> their (smart) backpacks to do this kind of thing.
> Or taking stuff to the cottage for the summer, and bringing it back later on.
> If we split up the 64K available /64s sensibly, it shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> I think that it's entirely reasonable that giving up the ULA when you move
> equipment requires an explicit administrator action, like holding down the
> FACTORY RESET button.  Sure, people might not do that; sure there might be
> some people confusion when 5 friends get together for a "LAN" party ("hey,
> why are there three servers called 'quake'? Which one is "quake-1"?"), but I
> don't think that will be any systems confused by such activity.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet