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

[Markus Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

On 15.10.2014, at 7.58, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Right.  This is IPv4.  In IPv4 we typically use a NAT on the local wire, so we get the effect we are trying to achieve either by retaining stale GUAs or using ULAs on the local wire in homenets.  IPv4 also does not provide graceful renumbering, so if the ISP wants to force an IPv4 address change, they have no choice but to do flash renumbering.  The UX is not good.
> Just to be clear, I am against flash renumbering, I want to see renumbering done with 30-60 minute overlap at least. I however do see that we really really need to support renumbering. One way of making sure that support works is to expose applications to frequent renumbering.

So essentially IPv6 home network would be ultimately worse platform than IPv4 one?

Because no matter what ISP does, my IPv4 prefixes in my home _are_ stable. And IPv6 ones too (thanks to using statically configured tunnel, cough).

I would argue that flash renumbering is bad too, but I would also claim that overlap of less than session lifetime is not acceptable. .. some of my session lifetimes are in days (single TCP session). Or are we planning to ultimately deprecate TCP and advocate something else? MPTCP? Yes, I know typical home user has just HTTP requests, but I am not fond of idea of turning the network to short-lived-connections only model just because it seems currently the most popular way to do things.

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.

Cheers,

-Markus