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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 21:09 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 1DC8A1A01F9 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:09:02 -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_40=-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 AbxB-S_rTFu8 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D821A1B0C for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:09:00 -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 14B4F23802BC; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe52+dxQwxVEJtdef_89Js+kZQkOBtoAUkYaJ9R5FrOwCYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:08:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <41C89287-810A-4119-84C3-C9B7CF302B14@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> <80 2A6061-3B41-4296-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> <AE178204-BC56-45E5-8EB3-94DB4760A7CE@fugue.com> <CADhXe52+dxQwxVEJtdef_89Js+kZQkOBtoAUkYaJ9R5FrOwCYA@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/Y0DuSmHUVn8U3449s0gcU2-LZQo
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>
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 21:09:02 -0000

On Oct 22, 2014, at 5:00 PM, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:
> My point is that it doesn't need to be done that way unless HOMENET forces that design choice.

The scenario you are describing sounds like it's secondary.   Yes, it's a valid use case, but homenets working right is a use case that will see wider deployment.   Federating home networks is certainly an interesting idea, but it seems even more bleeding edge than homenets.   I can think of a lot of nice ways to approach the problem.   I agree that if homenets use ULAs the way we're discussing, that constrains your choices, but I am confident that the remaining choices are not only adequate, but good.