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

James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.com>
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 7F5251ACD3D for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eV4xVbn2GW2b for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 140471ACEA3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id le20so19951vcb.25 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=183Wh6Jw2Csp1kTBfqgKJ1E2P98DmeOzgVP28QCk1EE=; b=Y+HY2opes91Fcc/C+cQtGPW3Z7+ug8P6yNty643vhQd0h0/oDhU75IT2sw6j+fiHcW k6M24gs6NI0PgBYRTOICPYqDDB2lbvL59KqS7hE5BDZXrITf+cLKOU8UydSIBqCDDfCb hFMOgHbksQEuVVHr+INL3LWltthIWSIY1EoI8+oEHbOhylDgq3lLsA336UPQ8+VJ75RY /dTia/0J4k1EegCNF0au6pyoHk0P4O8ywxO/urUb7+uZQeR6unW9iEJ6D2N627Ug/i2L OBzUzr99hijvbu5UEYbslQwE0O02YKFxP+ORPKn00vVkhudcpnDm9hXB7dRZ7tWJ7MQF k5dA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmEN2KVy7xzChVrGT0FIKrLQgNXS2Qfdqs72pfKsUIWgMWcmB6V3lH0p/ZwaMz0Bop+MHme
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.35.69 with SMTP id f5mr6853322vdj.35.1413324878102; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.10.65 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0DACB967-C77F-4C8A-82DD-759FF5C39E91@fugue.com>
References: <72CC13D1-7E7A-4421-B23E-16D8FFAEEB58@darou.fr> <CAAedzxp1R-C5E9RJVMVLRJxPc0w4zooPtqnvWK9eggpZu4=xtg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1410141020360.30853@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C52D3324-3015-45E0-88CF-D2A778D246B8@iki.fi> <CADhXe52iH_Abh3iZvpgQQYJF_FzbKkhNwzwjkcDt-DJA3RL+VA@mail.gmail.com> <70C2B2B2-A19A-4730-AB51-1EF26448445B@fugue.com> <CADhXe533umX9Q3NSbEktjcj8mBatXkDmRQKz0hOkGriBSX0t4g@mail.gmail.com> <94990F79-439A-4820-B03B-BFEAB01AA515@fugue.com> <CADhXe50DoZjjoG5tfidcGgtXx1TFyYECZyzeWmQstsT3=HPyaA@mail.gmail.com> <0DACB967-C77F-4C8A-82DD-759FF5C39E91@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:14:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CADhXe51ya1bHnP8NCvNkuN1+xdhNnA3qnapn7h1XEvmDX2D_jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307cfcd44fd6560505695787
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/xicSSedBZ5ii-Zj8baVy5NiTKrI
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <homenet@ietf.org>
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 22:14:44 -0000

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

>
> I don't think the objective is for the ULA prefix to be invariant.   It's
> for the availability of a ULA prefix to be dependable, and for flash
> renumbering to be avoided whenever possible.   So there's no problem with
> deprecating a ULA when you have two, and no need for the ULA to remain
> stable over long periods of time.
>

But there is a problem with only deprecating prefixes without expiring
them. If they never expire, then they accumulate without limit within
existing networks as they join with newly commissioned networks over the
course of their lifetimes.

The reason to want there to always be a ULA is that if you use a GUA as a
> ULA, the life cycle of your home network numbering is out of your control,
> and in the hands of whoever gave you the GUA. That's the only thing I think
> the ULA prefix has to do on a homenet: provide you with dependable,
> graceful homenet-local numbering.
>

So what's the problem? My language above ensures that home network hosts
always have at least one gracefully renumbered IPv6 address routable
throughout the entire network. If we need a further guarantee that hosts
always have an *invariant* address— which is an objective you've said above
that you think we don't actually have— only then are we faced with the
problem of prefix accumulation through network joins, which is a problem
I'm not sure we know how to solve effectively. My proposal avoids that
trouble.

--

To answer a previous question: I would say the reason I thought it worth
expressly zeroing the preferred lifetime on the locally generate ULA prefix
when another prefix is advertised is to expedite the transition to
preferring any delegated ULA prefix over the locally generated one.
Admittedly this is perhaps not worth the effort, and I won't argue further
for it.

-- 
james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering