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

Erik Kline <> Tue, 14 October 2014 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704E11A6FCD for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.171
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z5EbVVMm8Ou5 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7D1E1A6FCB for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z107so7785819qgd.24 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=TuxjpWsOxb3xh574I6bXdRgEax0QzRpnZ4qx7teOMxk=; b=O/pqStV1NazqtDX9oanvQKEQ2PrP1epigS/0D3ejKSIjBlUSWskxD1vhUIFlhEtMlh H1Wdlt5f17qqSUcqUK+qCDyw+37+LWFFOD4rXpxUI2NVxxsQnk6bK33Iazzc23xDfgxA T5E+hHjrKbzzhZ9HleUIadIvcveXML8lBP33iuaBDHGXxZ3y0jE65sLAR1VXc1T0sAxR w7MNL2iT0PiVES7n+BcJHqcPYZ8IEpSP+LxSFSUDPCU359P6qQlg8tona9vG7i3vw0YE lE6twxjTIuE5fkrU6YbZO91gic5BzcOtjN8+OusfnDDMXiv4m6qb1X3+4IdCn/ZK2Bzs SWEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=TuxjpWsOxb3xh574I6bXdRgEax0QzRpnZ4qx7teOMxk=; b=SxZb57Nqy5TD97cY/4eEjQ8FVfm1nRGVkj/9aBXUk2TWmfC2RxmaU0nYuLBv9TyiGu B+xgaUKlY718PDBwLR2ZHF1q/6K1+e1BEUpKpXVEer+VfOrxptOKSI8aeONtFyvOxzTo hAd3gMpONXnwueWBrR3H+0n01J4uM464MwaGmDLrgLn9SPVuZpcRkY8ZCzvpbJRJ1/GU 4NPraSy2fkRAAA97h6+g1FMXh9b/n1yp42qPRUPCc7syEnRJTfALSMKBymwG3umJ1UwF DAACwiUO3JU/l7UVOmts8+nMLiawMI3exeILHzX5Tz7H8IeF/rPScERoIG86fOHCwTK2 4l8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmankwLRsw+Iu4Vlg6qKJK26DPfTkeqlu+QemPCj2UqXVcyYudC1+soZe7S0ebV4/eIDIch
X-Received: by with SMTP id x90mr5379958qgx.69.1413274376915; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Erik Kline <>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:12:36 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Pierre Pfister <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <>
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: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:13:00 -0000

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).

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Pierre Pfister <> wrote:
> Hello group,
> The architecture document states the following:
> - A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique prefix(es) to allow stable communication between devices [...]
> This translates into section 9.1 in the Prefix Assignment draft:
> - A router MAY spontaneously generate a ULA delegated prefix [...]
> So, that MAY should probably be a SHOULD. But the reason for this mail is one level higher:
> Question: Should the generation of a stable ULA prefix be a MUST in any case ?
> Advantages would be:
> - In the protocol design process, we could assume in-home IPv6 connectivity. No need for special case for IPv4-only connectivity, no need for special TLVs, flags, or whatever.
> - In the implementation process, it is way easier to handle one single IP version for all in-home traffic. Let it be IPv6 !
> - This connectivity would be more stable than IPv4 (which only exists when there is an IPv4 uplink). IPv6 enabled apps would therefore behave *better* than IPv4-only. Which would in the end help for transitioning.
> Disadvantages are:
> - The best (and probably only correct) way of advertising in-home ULA connectivity is using RIOs. Which some (e.g. apple's) devices don't support (yet?).
> - Some currently existing implementation may fail when facing ULA vs IPv4 choice.
> It looks to me that disadvantages will be overcome in the coming years if IETF requires implementation to handle ULAs and RIOs better.
> So the question is, should I change the Prefix Assignment draft and make ULA existence a MUST so that we/developers can rely on that in our protocol design and implementation process ?
> Cheers,
> Pierre
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list