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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 15:13 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 1655E1A8924 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.693
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 H3wOmEjP4aT9 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E971A88EC for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.63] (c-71-201-198-58.hsd1.il.comcast.net [71.201.198.58]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 190732380423; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:13:36 -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: <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:13:34 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D59D80C-2BF0-428B-A872-B2922B2D0F98@fugue.com>
References: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr> <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com> <C7F3DE60-F596-4BAD-9C28-74006966E5B9@fugue.com> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <69B1F2CB-88C6-4211-83F3-11C8A3E7BFD2@fugue.com> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/iMWXgWl_O5RdB5wmP0w6cH2u3cw
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:13:41 -0000

On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
>> Indeed.   The question is, should we increase the number of instances in which they are forced to handle it, or no?
> 
> Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to
> handle it.

Application developers _can't_ handle it.   Applications have no control over routing, and making applications do source address selection is a really bad idea.

I haven't encountered any ISPs that do flash renumbering, and I'm surprised to hear you saying that T-Online is doing it: that's not my understanding.   In general, providers that renumber their customers use graceful renumbering, not flash renumbering.   There's no reason to do flash renumbering.