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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 15 October 2014 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 C12CF1A8987 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.282
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 i4Bnfd5gpfdw for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 250EB1A898D for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from takifugu.mtcc.com (takifugu.mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9FGZKHb026531 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:35:20 -0700
Message-ID: <543EA248.2080700@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:35:20 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homenet@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <CBC8A3D9-9EBD-47FF-B066-247898FF2000@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/SPdv_zoTK3fi0DhrAh81T2qQWEk
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:35:21 -0000

On 10/15/2014 09:28 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
>> Could you remind me what your point was?
> My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for local communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered, and the use of them on the local wire has the potential to cause disruptions on the local wire that could be prevented by using ULAs.   And that there is no real downside to having ULAs on the local network.
>

What about when my device is wandering back and forth between my ap and 
my neighbor's?

Mike