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

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 18 October 2014 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1FB1A86DD for <>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 05:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gRS_pPjd_dj0 for <>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 05:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAFA1A802C for <>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 05:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92CEB238039E; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:57:33 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:57:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <>, James Woodyatt <>
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: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:57:38 -0000

On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>> I did explain how to do that: before the network partitions, 
> That seems to imply that you know in advance that the network
> will partition. I assume that it will usually be a surprise.
> Normally there is no human manager, although a human might
> randomly disconnect cables or switch off a power socket.
> So I think you mean: as soon as the network has generated its ULA...

That is indeed what I meant, sorry for not saying so explicitly.

>> divide the ULA into 64k /64 prefixes, and distribute these evenly among attached routers.
> ...but that will break when another router attaches itself later,
> unless the (re)distribution process is continuous.

Which is the reason we have HNCP.

>> Routers other than the ones that own a particular /64 are not allowed ever to use that /64 unless the router that owns it relinquishes it to them explicitly.
> Sure, and this needs to be supported by HNCP (or something else).


>>  Prior to partition, an agreement is made that one of the routers gets to keep the ULA in the event of a long-term partition. 
> Again: that has to happen as soon as the ULA is generated, since partition
> is unpredictable.

To clarify, yes, when the ULA is generated you have to do this, but you may revisit the decision subsequently, prior to partition.   You don't know when partition happens, but that doesn't preclude making new choices later.   E.g., if you only have one internet connection, you might want the device connected to that link to be the one that holds the token.   Or you may have a dedicated server on-link which would be ideal for stuff like this, although we really haven't talked about non-router servers participating in HNCP.