Subject: Re: [homenet] section 3.2.2.1 of homenet-arch

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:53:46 +0100

On 31/07/2012 19:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <Brian> writes:
>     Brian> But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the antiquated
>     Brian> v4-only PCs behind it, the PCs all get new IP addresses, which may or
>     Brian> may not be the same as the previous time. There's nothing new in flash
>     Brian> renumbering for homenets. Not handling this would be a step
>     Brian> backwards.
> 
>     >> Well... 
>     >> 
>     >> 1) sure, but the *customer* does this, not the ISP.
>     >> 2) the clients do have DHCP leases, and if they ask to renew their
>     >> previous IP, it usually gets honored.
> 
>     Brian> It doesn't matter whether it's the user or the ISP that triggers
>     Brian> a change, does it?
> 
> It does.
> When the customer power cycles their device, everything starts again.
> They know they did this.
> 
> If the ISP renegs on the lifetimes of the leases, and wants to flash
> renumber the customer, either:
>   a) there is protocol for forcing the renumbering (does 6renum provide
>      this?)

I already mentioned RECONFIGURE (DHCPv6) and FORCERENEW (DHCP). Whatever
we adopt for prefix delegation needs the equivalent.

>   b) the customer is offline until *they* reboot their device.
> 
>     Brian> The point is, users don't care about this, except if they reach their
>     Brian> shiny new wireless printer via its IP static address. There are definitely
>     Brian> parts of draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem that apply here.
> 
> okay, I'll read it.
> But, the printer is addressed as "printer.local", and is reached with
> the ULA, and we agreed that having this work regardless of whether or
> not the ISP was alive was in-scope.

Sure, except IMHO the printer should have an unambiguous FQDN and we need
dynamic DNS updates, just in case.

   Brian