Hi Fred, On 6/18/14 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Jouni, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:00 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> Fred, >> >> It is true IPv4 is there (and will be for a long time). Although the >> charter does emphasize IPv6 as the base solution it does not prohibit >> adding IPv4 support. It is just we can accept an IPv6-only solution as a >> valid & complete solution from DMM point of view. > > However, a solution that works equally well whether the access networks > are IPv6-only, dual-stack, or IPv4-only has clear advantages in terms > of near-term deployment in real networks. Therefore, I think the charter > is currently saying _too much_. My new proposal is simply to strike the > following two sentences: > > "DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6 deployments and > should not be required to support IPv4, specifically in situations > where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. IPv6 is > assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the > access networks." >
The above has been a part of the DMM charter for a long time. Taking it out would appear to be opening the door for IPv4-only solutions. My assessment of the winds within the community is that people are not interested in new protocols for IPv4. Just my opinion... Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
