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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 14 October 2014 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 559D41A6FDA for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.693
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 6W2goXt3xzBf for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81C31A6FCD for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243861FCB5C; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:25:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFF7160056; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08440160053; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1259921690CB; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:25:39 +1100 (EST)
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr> <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:12:36 +0900." <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:25:39 +1100
Message-Id: <20141014082539.1259921690CB@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/w0bsiMaappg0HPBb2jsvq3Dl0mA
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:25:46 -0000

In message <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com>om>, Erik Kline writes:
> I vote no, please don't make it MUST.
> 
> Among other things, if my home edge router losing it's upstream it (in
> theory) doesn't have to deprecate the global prefix in the home, just
> the default route.  Since I can't get to the Internet anyway, all I
> need is (almost) any prefix, and the one I have is as good as a ULA
> (if not better, since the upstream loss may just be a flap).

Deprecating the prefix doesn't make it unusable.   However by not
having a ULA prefix already you have the problem about when to
instantiate a ULA prefix.  You shouldn't be using a prefix beyond
the time it is delegated to you.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org