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

Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr> Tue, 14 October 2014 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=uufC=7F=darou.fr=pierre.pfister@bounces.m4x.org>
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 51D8B1A6FCB for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 f0m3VCf4tJ7h for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.polytechnique.org (mx1.polytechnique.org [129.104.30.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02911A6FC8 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp8070.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.polytechnique.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C411B1408EFA0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:43:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:43:59 +0200
To: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP at svoboda.polytechnique.org (Tue Oct 14 09:44:00 2014 +0200 (CEST))
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/VPugJgc4ikMIJKZ6MLhpdxAhjko
Subject: [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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:44:29 -0000

Hello group,

The architecture document states the following:
- A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique prefix(es) to allow stable communication between devices [...]

This translates into section 9.1 in the Prefix Assignment draft:
- A router MAY spontaneously generate a ULA delegated prefix [...]

So, that MAY should probably be a SHOULD. But the reason for this mail is one level higher:

Question: Should the generation of a stable ULA prefix be a MUST in any case ?

Advantages would be:
- In the protocol design process, we could assume in-home IPv6 connectivity. No need for special case for IPv4-only connectivity, no need for special TLVs, flags, or whatever.
- In the implementation process, it is way easier to handle one single IP version for all in-home traffic. Let it be IPv6 !
- This connectivity would be more stable than IPv4 (which only exists when there is an IPv4 uplink). IPv6 enabled apps would therefore behave *better* than IPv4-only. Which would in the end help for transitioning.

Disadvantages are:
- The best (and probably only correct) way of advertising in-home ULA connectivity is using RIOs. Which some (e.g. apple's) devices don't support (yet?).
- Some currently existing implementation may fail when facing ULA vs IPv4 choice.


It looks to me that disadvantages will be overcome in the coming years if IETF requires implementation to handle ULAs and RIOs better.

So the question is, should I change the Prefix Assignment draft and make ULA existence a MUST so that we/developers can rely on that in our protocol design and implementation process ?

Cheers,

Pierre