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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 17 October 2014 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 7E83B1A1B7D for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no
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 GIQpnp0smfTH for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E81601A1B7C for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABCB20028 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A7DF563A80; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C5D63A1F for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "homenet\@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <3F36952F-CF6A-4F21-A713-A8A7DE7BDC42@fugue.com>
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> <457D177C-232E-4590-A9ED-80048140157F@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr1kix0HxWsC4n7ta4EG-6YhMMdYCTnFFXGb2ATQBbkMHA@mail.gmail.com> <DCB62D43-DFD3-4985-8FAA-896CEA3BD342@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr3kJQetKzgYyZ1vpx KT31=wi NavxTM+WoUTg2gP5Dx4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <94C19398-AC5A-416F-8C3E-EA6B1750C22C@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr1rpFeZuy=nXFSj+dpa749RhJJ2j9+U=cmFq_4cCsC_4g@mail.gmail.com> <4D6F2B13-D63E-4FEE-A136-B510126CC1C9@fugue.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130EA3B9A@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <1AA5DBBD-C3C5-4AFD-A043-6A69AE7FBDB9@fugue.com> <CAKD1Yr3Fa7hgXZReWFgmHA9pLnH=ezHLXh-aAdA-_N=AR3AiyA@mail.gmail.com> <3F36952F-CF6A-4F21-A713-A8A7DE7BDC42@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:45:43 -0400
Message-ID: <3626.1413560743@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/uW4QpvFtACeppf_CcgAfnPV7sQI
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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:45:46 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > So this is why I am arguing that homenets SHOULD have ULAs, and why
    > Markus is arguing that they MUST.  We really do want hosts to prefer
    > the ULA if they can use it, and we really do want to always have a ULA.
    > Hosts that are communicating on intra-homenet should not be using GUAs
    > to do so, and it is worth a little effort to try to ensure that that is
    > the case.

Again, 7084 says ULAs are a SHOULD (I remembered a MUST).

In my mind, the kind of reason for a CPE device *NOT* to offer a ULA is because
the administrator typed in their own (provider independant) GUA over the ULA.

I.e. one of the 8 people in this conversation (perhaps the world) who
*actually* has their own allocation that they use in their home.. (not via a tunnel)
{my swap /24 is no longer at my home, and despite LRSA'ing it, I can't get my
own /40 from ARIN unless I'm willing to cough up $1250/year}

Perhaps there are other scenarios where the CPE needs to support turning off
the ULA generation and advertisement, but other than that, I read that SHOULD
as being pretty much a "MUST"

This is why I think the discussion is moot.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-