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

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 17 October 2014 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60711A1A52 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I2VmlpLIp1n5 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7321A1B70 for <>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9E1C238050E; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:03:16 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <CAKD1Yr1rpFeZuy=nXFSj+d pa749RhJ> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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 16:03:22 -0000

On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
> 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 has
> 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 solve.