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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Pierre Pfister wrote:

> Looks like a good default policy to me.
> So there always is at least one IPv6 prefix (if not a GUA, generate a ULA).
>
> It still provides always-on IPv6 connectivity. And would therefore simplify protocol design and implementation.
>
> Does it seems like a better compromise to you (Mikael, Erik, Wuyts) ?

I would like to see the following (configurable):

If you have GUA, don't use ULA.
When last GUA lease expires, just keep this GUA until something else shows 
up, then deprecate and move away from it.

I would really prefer to have RIO so host doesn't see default route using 
this GUA with no connectivity.

My rationale for this is to avoid to have GUA expire and popping up ULA, 
and then deprecating ULA again when GUA shows up.

Advantage of deprecating GUA as soon as outside connectivity goes away is 
that using 0 lifetime RAs for this prefix when there is no outside 
connectivity and popping up ULA, means RFC6724 hosts will do the right 
thing.

I'm conflicted as to what the correct behaviour is. RFC3484 hosts probably 
doesn't support RIO either, so we're screwed either way.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]