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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 0CB391AD3F1 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.982
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, 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 z8VZBWy2EK1c for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DE91AD3ED for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (c-71-233-43-215.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [71.233.43.215]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09748238013F; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe51p8roxXT9+vm9eyXg0C9YB4+cUuozHhGg+jJxWV_dGQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:51:01 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AE178204-BC56-45E5-8EB3-94DB4760A7CE@fugue.com>
References: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr> <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1410141020360.30853@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C52D3324-3015-45E0-88CF-D2A778D246B8@iki.fi> <CADhXe52iH_Abh3iZvpgQQYJF_FzbKkhNwzwjkcDt-DJA3RL+VA@mail.gmail.com> <70C2B2B2-A19A-4730-AB51-1EF26448445B@fugue.com> <CADhXe533umX9Q3NSbEktjcj8mBatXkDmRQKz0hOkGriBSX0t4g@mail.gmail.com> <94990F79-439A-4820-B03B-BFEAB01AA515@fugue.com> <CADhXe50DoZjjoG5tfidcGgtXx1TFyYECZyzeWmQstsT3=HPyaA@mail.gmail.com> <0DACB967-C77F-4C8A-82DD-759FF5C39E91@fugue.com> <CADhXe51ya1bHnP8NCvNkuN1+xdhNnA3qnapn7h1XEvmDX2D_jg@mail.gmail.com> <4321EF22-4AD9-4BC8-8253-12034C562C00@fugue.com> <CADhXe51MC4ubB3de+sSm+KSRNQJH7RLVvRUWmQnE393RR+HBnA@mail.gmail.com> <69F7C62F-273B-4808-B7A8-5D2487CAF4BF@fugue.com> <CADhXe52FW+7e8t9Z8fHGvHZfZJWM48gwnDBLhHz8TwZQzMGa4Q@mail.gmail.com> <9C02AF4F-CEFC-426A-B8CC-0A5DA146FB1B@fugue.com> <CBD056DD-D5CA-4B2E-878F-14BB0EF123FD@fugue.com> <1D 269223-52B5-4B58-A46F-3B787EAFE4F3@fugue.com> <802A6061-3B41-4296-B739-E740DCF4873F@darou.fr> <648DEA84-6A8F-4075-85B1-AD135719CFC0@iki.fi> <CADhXe53drG2EzQmAvzGstcM-gC0UtjDOY3YQoKswRWYfqky-2g@mail.gmail.com> <32190.1414001095@sandelman.ca> <CADhXe51p8roxXT9+vm9eyXg0C9YB4+cUuozHhGg+jJxWV_dGQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/V3GzZB4lGpZbEpV5qqTgZBUR_pU
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
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, 22 Oct 2014 19:51:05 -0000

On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>; wrote:
> They may often be the only *default* routers, but there can be— and absolutely definitely will be in the vast majority of cases— overlay networks that route ULA prefixes to, from and most likely *between* home networks over tunnels. We can't tell people not to do that. If there is a routing protocol in a HOMENET, then it will be done, and it ought to work right.

In the case where ULAs are being routed like this, wouldn't that ULA be the responsibility of whatever homenet federation protocol is being used?   I don't disagree that this is a valid use case, but I don't think it would rely on the homenet ULA.