Re: [v6ops] disconnected homenets

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

HI,

On 23 Jun 2014, at 16:41, Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Le 23/06/2014 17:18, Tim Chown a écrit :
>> 
>> On 23 Jun 2014, at 15:56, Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Old email, sorry.
>>> 
>>> Le 28/05/2014 23:24, Mark ZZZ Smith a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>>> The use case I like to imagine is a home user streaming a video from
>>>> their NAS to their TV over their internal network. That should use
>>>> ULAs so that a failure of their Internet connection/Global addressing
>>>> has no impact on watching their movie. If the movie failed because
>>>> the Internet connection/global addressing failed, that user will call
>>>> the ISP's helpdesk. But why should it fail! The home users internal
>>>> network is fine, it is only external connectivity that has failed.
>>> 
>>> I hope this requirement is considered in the homenet architecture discussion.
>> 
>> It is already covered, e.g. in 3.4.2.
> 
> Thanks, it's already covered and makes sense.
> 
> However, I have one minor issue with it.
> 
> I do not understand why it requires an in-home Router to not advertise self as a default router whenever ULA prefixes are involved.
> 
>>   In cases where ULA prefixes are in use within a homenet but there is
>>   no external IPv6 connectivity (and thus no GUAs in use),
>>   recommendations ULA-5, L-3 and L-4 in RFC 6204 should be followed to
>>   ensure correct operation, in particular where the homenet may be
>>   dual-stack with IPv4 external connectivity.  The use of the Route
>>   Information Option described in [RFC4191] provides a mechanism to
>>   advertise such more-specific ULA routes.
> 
> (or I can't remember the earlier discussions).
> 
> It may be that this requirement will make the in-home Hosts not capable of talking to each other simply because not implementing RFC4191.  And, certainly RFC4191 is not for Router-to-Router communications.
> 
> The benefit of the doubt.

This topic was discussed a year or so ago in the context of the draft on ULA usage, e.g. see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg16405.html

It would be good to ensure this is captured in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02

Tim

> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> 
>>> Too often the in-home Internet-disconnected network can not work internally.
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> People might argue that enterprise networks are different and they
>>>> are - they're simpler! Enterprise networks have technical staff on
>>>> hand that can troubleshoot networks and resolve faults. If you can
>>>> make IPv6 work seamlessly for home networks and their non-technical
>>>> "operators", you've solved the harder problem. Since enterprise
>>>> networks also value the same things home networks do - seamless
>>>> operation, robustness against failure, stable internal connectivity,
>>>> you've solved most of the enterprise network problems too.
>>>> 
>>>>> It doesn't conform to RFC 7084 either, which clearly
>>>> 
>>>>> states that "prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured...)" must be
>>>>> advertised.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The precursor to 7084 (6204) was in development at the time, but it
>>>> wouldn't have helped because they were ignoring our feedback.
>>>> (Another CPE vendor was much better and almost too keen - they were
>>>> sending me new software to test within 24 hours after reporting an
>>>> IPv6 issue.)
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Mark.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>