Re: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-07-30 20:13, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:
>>> Alain is one person
>>> who would like to renumber the ULA on the LAN interface 
>> acquiring a GUA.
>>> I didn't see enough justification from him to change the 
>> draft in the 
>>> ULA regard.  Remi has also replied to Alain's concerns and claimed 
>>> they are non-issues.
>> I think there's a philosophical difference behind that. My 
>> personal view of ULAs has always been that their value lies in 
>> being provider- independent and stable, and being always 
>> available for intra-site communications. IMHO they are not 
>> temporary addresses for use during a boot phase or 
>> disconnected operation.
> 
> In a use case where WAN connection dynamically changes without (P)MIP
> support, should the ULAs be used in LAN, the local connectivity would
> not be disrupted by WAN address changes, right? I.e. the ULA would
> remain constant, while the global prefix advertised in LAN would
> experience sudden renumbering (or perhaps controlled, but still quick,
> renumbering could be possible if WAN change is done with help of two
> radios (make before break)).
> 
> The WAN address change can also happen if WAN connection is for any
> reason disrupted and re-establishment does not result in same global
> prefix being allocated -> thus immediate renumbering for LAN is
> required.

Correct. Sessions open to the outside world will break if that happens,
but not internal sessions using the ULA.

    Brian