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

Michael Thomas <> Wed, 15 October 2014 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D291ACDFC for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.781
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6ua1sswE6tF for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE23E1A87CE for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9FMvwf4002973; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:57:58 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:57:53 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <20141014142746.GX31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014145930.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:58:01 -0000

On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas <> wrote:
>> See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my backyard trapeze watching
>> the flying wallendas instructional video from my home jukebox, I really don't want to have
>> my network break connectivity because I happened to switch to my neighbor's wifi and I
>> was using a ULA when I could have kept connectivity with a GUA.
> This is simply a non-sequitur.   It has nothing to do with homenet.   It has to do with how the stack works on your home, and what the propagation of radio waves looks like in your back yard.   The assumption that you will be able to access your jukebox over your neighbor's wifi contains packed in it so much new protocol work we could fork several working groups to handle it.
If I use a GUA to my jukebox, the routing will just work regardless of which
AP I'm currently connected to. With ULA's, not so much. That's hardly a 

ULA's with mobility are very problematic IMO. I'm a lot more likely to 
wander onto my
neighbor's home network than to suffer a flash renumbering from one of 
my providers.
Mobility considerations aren't a distant future, they're now.