IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

"Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net> Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FE512B032 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 03:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 wUIK0VY2XmWE for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 03:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (092-111-140-212.static.chello.nl [92.111.140.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B7812B05E for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 03:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C374840015; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:45:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at globis01.globis.net
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YayJj_kf5YT0; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:45:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.local (178-84-244-32.dynamic.upc.nl [178.84.244.32]) (Authenticated sender: v6ops@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E0F1140012; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:45:02 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5735B02D.8080304@globis.net>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:45:01 +0200
From: "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <6E709688-414A-4AFB-AEAE-56BAE0469583@coote.org> <87eg9wfctc.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nq1CTMmQHFQXnaFY73SyRPKpWagiMVfrHODakbeT2Wxw@mail.gmail.com> <87a8kj3r7p.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nN+ih8xpBV_-T_JaGtbBG6d5zYqW==tph8yN_UB34NNw@mail.gmail.com> <56DB4264-1769-443A-86F2-BB0BE0ED9693@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|87dc38b1e390496e02166dafe2490d8as44D0U03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|56DB4264-1769-443A-86F2-BB0BE0ED9693@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <57333B3F.7000009@globis.net> <CC759790-4F9B-47B8-A42C-A85F78AC9773@jisc.ac.uk> <57335AB6.8060305@globis.net> <87mvnwh81u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAPt1N1nu98pXdDzVgZ2yW7xe8mwA=O+zmoGS8XLs_NLbNUaKFQ@mail.gmail.com> <57337274.1040000@globis.net> <CAPt1N1=mVBM-Dyg50eAv4Lz4XK1Hfe1SgHH5osR9fuhJhc0DWQ@mail.gmail.com> <57344249.8070907@globis.net> <874ma3s9pc.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <57348817.1090200@globis.net> <CAPt1N1nWJJx_38Z_G8085w3Kwnd=_6gX3FBLjFMQcDm9sTdFtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nWJJx_38Z_G8085w3Kwnd=_6gX3FBLjFMQcDm9sTdFtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040109050703050700020404"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/YaDxC6OqqGM_PF8F1S0upHdVUic>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:09 -0000

> Ted Lemon <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>
> 12 May 2016 15:48
> As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside to 
> renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you 
> ultimately wind up with.
>
So are you suggesting the Homenet (internal) namespace should be 
independent of ULA address space?

In which case

1) how do we avoid the ".local" security problem where mobile devices 
are unable to distinguish whether they've actually moved to a different 
Homenet, or whether they've stayed still and their own Homenet has just 
renumbered.

Or else

2) Does the renumbering mechanism also trigger an automatic renaming too?

-- 
regards,
RayH
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email