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

Wuyts Carl <> Tue, 14 October 2014 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30E91A701E for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 03:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.606
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8k27hux39Tn6 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 03:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:702]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58DC11A702A for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 03:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:16:30 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:16:30 +0000
From: Wuyts Carl <>
To: Pierre Pfister <>, Markus Stenberg <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Thread-Index: AQHP54K0vE/OjWpAb0mPoL0zPh7VxpwvPjQAgAACZoCAAAENgIAAExsAgAAIOSA=
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:16:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR0201MB0676;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03648EFF89
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(24454002)(199003)(189002)(51704005)(76482002)(93886004)(85306004)(66066001)(20776003)(64706001)(97736003)(122556002)(108616004)(80022003)(46102003)(76576001)(21056001)(106356001)(120916001)(4396001)(2656002)(85852003)(19580405001)(105586002)(107046002)(87936001)(40100003)(15975445006)(74316001)(31966008)(33646002)(101416001)(566174002)(92566001)(19580395003)(106116001)(86362001)(95666004)(99286002)(99396003)(77096002)(50986999)(54356999)(76176999)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR0201MB0676;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Erik Kline <>, HOMENET Working Group <>, Mikael Abrahamsson <>
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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:16:55 -0000


Our operational mode is "managed CPE".  We can recommend our customer to use a certain approach, i.e. e.g. use ULA/do not use ULA.  So in that sense, creating a ULA if no GUA is present is not an option, as it will be present or not, no matter GUA delivered or not.  Of course, if it is enabled, this would be ok for the below.  But not every customer wants ULA.  It increases complexity for them, they can do as such nearly all without it, so go for an option without it.

So, either the customer has chosen to use ULA or not.  So, let's assume we would adapt this, and all of a sudden bring on ULA's on the customer's CPEs, he would for sure not be too happy about it, as he might start getting Q's on his helpdesk.
It is of course always open to discussion with a customer, but putting some rules in place like "enable ULA on an intf is no other prefix is there" is typically not an option.

Moreover, keep in mind that the operator can, at any time, switch of IPv6 on/off (upto  interface level) breaking this possibility for whatever reason (through TR-069).  Of course, this would "break" homenet stuff :-(.  Also the opposite is in place, i.e enable ULA remotely, but same principle applies here: either the ISP goes got ULA or not.


-----Original Message-----
From: homenet [] On Behalf Of Pierre Pfister
Sent: dinsdag 14 oktober 2014 11:33
To: Markus Stenberg
Cc: Erik Kline; HOMENET Working Group; Mikael Abrahamsson
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Looks like a good default policy to me.
So there always is at least one IPv6 prefix (if not a GUA, generate a ULA).

It still provides always-on IPv6 connectivity. And would therefore simplify protocol design and implementation.

Does it seems like a better compromise to you (Mikael, Erik, Wuyts) ?

- Pierre

Le 14 oct. 2014 à 10:24, Markus Stenberg <> a écrit :

> On 14.10.2014, at 11.21, Mikael Abrahamsson <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Erik Kline wrote:
>>> I vote no, please don't make it MUST.
>> I agree, ULA should be optional, not MUST.
> If we live in the land where we ignore existing broken implementations..
> From my point of view, it should be SHOULD _always_ generate ULA (so that privacy oriented things in a home have a sane default without need for trusting firewalling), and MUST generate if no GUA around.
> Keeping GUA around as long as it has valid lease lifetime is fine too, of course.
> Cheers,
> -Markus
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list

homenet mailing list