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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Thu, 16 October 2014 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B6D1A010C for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.394
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 QIbznxXft94l for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F4F1A008C for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id rd18so3481093iec.1 for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=R8WEIU9xHWE7hT8hbdZrp9KZchlQItvliXYvNT6B59M=; b=asVJcrCk9CVUFCznYclZRypsGiA6SSGauj+AvW1dAyfCmtLnmcowJTorHVsN+aaQn8 Vsd90uBnB3ULkV3S+9S7Q4HITwWwkO+K3Rfyp/78wIEjReM1h2C+GIYuU0e6XbXCzZVQ tJ4sRrxs4HVe1OvkHKlsx1tXmvUIBkf9tWiAFONuuKDcZswbutV5nqGsXlJNZWZecz9v aD45kPAcIvbp5eas6pvVO5Wf4G9v203kWg0/ayXOMPo8oDr/Jqh1LhIMsxFMZZBa+OoN WRgJteDXqsBjC6V6jT7ZcFQokVJyiXlunBbsljwX74p09EY5oH35q0luUYMRykQct1dT bxtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=R8WEIU9xHWE7hT8hbdZrp9KZchlQItvliXYvNT6B59M=; b=B4LYohdSI10gKIcD0XWqU7FIYh8tqhUcttgVYynNFZ6viIGcGhx4OqnvCH8gAJ/RxU 10hZc5pxRCU1BPJSGMnniu6Lo3YCMDm1Zt6KNkSMSIW243e8IBfwi0HjVKSdEl4bT8jA LTliFPsIQq6t2q0PpOy+OFHuLb1+l/UprO+Sul3N7vEpojvzNS2LkFMrGreQI/5BDbgj I/XNLHeTFuVkdbW3VfBc31ejfkA0u7rlEpl2/aXECphrDCJjswwb7Owkpiq1eGnc/n3m GlP5vIqd3YUSfjpMgjsf1jzK0UyZIpT/FmH8nHU4c7xWpLqyoLoxIKCFIc+voi1GbKwi bXpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmm2JAAZUB81BTzI4L84B67iDIou/ERZXf+cmnqjnHNNOrdopG3SRjrQ8DgIRaUZmqznClr
X-Received: by with SMTP id m8mr1764568ioi.8.1413467032356; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:43:31 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed31c5de2eb05058a7086
Cc: "" <>, Michael Thomas <>
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: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:43:54 -0000

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> >> My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs
> for local communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered,
> >>
> > Actually, they can't.
> Yes they can, as you just agreed:

No, I didn't.

You seem to define flash renumbering as "your ISP invalidates your prefix
and gives you a new one". But such an event does *not* mean that the host
can't use its previous addresses any more, because the RA sent to the hosts
cannot reduce the valid lifetime below 2 hours. So in effect that's still
graceful renumbering with a 2-hour window.

That seems to me to be begging for trouble.   As a rule routers have too
> much memory, not too little, so I find this reasoning unconvincing.
>  Taking a little memory away from the buffer cache to make the forwarding
> table bigger seems like a really good idea.

Routers have many different types of memories, at very different costs.
DRAM is cheap. The stuff they store forwarding tables in is not. It's
expensive and hot.

> And changing the policy table isn't that hard: if we want to have a
> special policy for the local ULA, we already have a mechanism for doing it
> that does not require O.S. vendors to hard-code a different policy table
> nor users to select one manually: stateless DHCPv6.   And for those who
> consider the use of DHCPv6 déclassé, it will still work without: you just
> won't be protected from a provider doing flash renumbering.

And when your ISP renumbers you, or a new ULA joins the network, you're
going to tell the hosts about the new prefix policy using what type of
packet? There's no reconfigure in stateless DHCPv6.