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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 15/10/2014 22:48, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> 
>> Every time I hear about ISP-forced customer renumberings, the more I
>> start to think that 1+ ULA prefixes per home is a MUST, not a SHOULD.
> 
> For me this isn't just about ISP-forced customer renumberings, but to
> also handle power outages, equipment malfunction (so you lose your
> lease), equipment change, ISP change, and all other things that today
> will make you change the IPv4 address a few times a year or something.
> 
> I believe we should use SHIM6, MP-TCP, "mosh" and other similar
> techniques to make sure that we can move sessions around when doing
> renumbering.

Shim6 is unfortunately broken, until the day when all middleboxes
allow the extension headers to pass, which is far from true today.
MPTCP only works for TCP. Mosh aparently only works for SSH. Happy
eyeballs only works for browsers. This is far from a closed topic.

> IPv6 has the infrastructure on L3 to handle renumbering gracefully, 

That's unclear to me. Anyway, it might be worth reviewing the
gap analysis at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7010
(which was mainly aimed at enterprises) to see how it looks
for homenets.

> now
> we just need L4 and applications to get with the program as well. I
> would really like to see us go in the way of IP addresses not being the
> single anchorpoint of all communication, we need to make sure that we
> have other mechanisms such as L4 protocols being "agile" when it comes
> to IP address change over time, and also having DNS or other mechanism
> being able to be updated with information over time to enable this
> mobility.

"Just"?? Anyway, see my rant in CCR:
http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2014/April/0000000-0000008.pdf

   Brian