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

[<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>]

>> 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.

Best regards,

	Teemu