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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 16 October 2014 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 D7F4A1A1F73 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 zHw2oNQmwOWu for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED2E1A1AE0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s9G8tUkt017415 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:55:30 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BF96205EB3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:56:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949A9205D65 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:56:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s9G8tSO1010197 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:55:29 +0200
Message-ID: <543F8800.1060507@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:55:28 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homenet@ietf.org
References: <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> <m1Xe3jL-0000I7C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20141014154111.GZ31092@Space.Net> <C6760B68-C913-4B22-98E6-6D29A66F80D9@fugue.com> <20141015150422.GW31092@Space.Net> <4E2E154E-D231-4E79-860A-56948A13CDD4@fugue.com> <20141015154841.GY31092@Space.Net> <CBC8A3D9-9EBD-47FF-B066-247898FF2000@fugue.com> <543EA248.2080700@mtcc.com> <CB50B30B-DC36-4354-96B7-19AE415BD03F@fugue.com> <543EBE40.3030201@mtcc.com> <BA5ABBFA-9D13-4975-A96C-530FE958322A@fugue.com> <543ED2A7.3090409@mtcc.com> <1569644A-50C4-47B6-908E-262BC62BCD14@fugue.com> <543EFBF1.6040101@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <543EFBF1.6040101@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/np20rC9klP4vAOJajdlUEGgTX8E
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: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:55:36 -0000

Le 16/10/2014 00:57, Michael Thomas a écrit :
>
> On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> 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 non-sequitur.
>
> ULA's with mobility are very problematic IMO.

I think this is right, mobility and ULAs may have some issues.

If by mobility we understand Mobile IP then assigning a GUA to HA (or
some form of protocol forwarding from the Box to the HA) only may allow
to then use ULAs for the mobile devices.  The implications of NATv6 may
vary.

> 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.

Yes and no.  WiFi wandering is completely under the enduser's control.

> Mobility considerations aren't a distant future, they're now.

I agree.

Alex

>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>