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

[JF Tremblay <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> "flash renumber is a problem" is pretty much a non-argument, as flash 
>>> renumbering *will* happen, and devices in the home *will* have to handle it.
>> 
>> Indeed.   The question is, should we increase the number of instances in which they are forced to handle it, or no?
> 
> Yes.
> Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to
> handle it.

+1, renumbering will happen and should be properly handled. 

A good example here is IPv6 renumbering from docsis domain splits in the cable world. In a typical case, a client would see a loss of upstream for 5-10 minutes followed with restoration with a new /56 GUA. Although techniques are available to limit renumbering during these events, they aren’t always deployed, for practical, technical or political reasons. From various discussions between cable operators, the rule of thumb is that this would typically happen roughly every 12 months for any single residential user. Cable users in areas seeing rapid growth or new technology deployments could expect shorter timeframes between renumbering events (every 4-6 months for example, or even shorter).     

I like the approach Mikael described earlier. Keep the GUA until it expires, then generate a ULA if required, if nothing else exists. Keeping the GUA beyond expiration should be avoided IMHO. I’ve seen broken implementations do this and causing a lot of headaches. The removal of the old GUA prefix before it’s expiration is also a problem in many implementations, but that’s probably a battle for another day.  

JF