Agree. We should ensure the base solution supports IPv6 transport and user sessions. Optionally, support for IPv4 can be allowed on certain interfaces, but clearly should not deal with IPv4, NAT's or allow IPv4-only solutions.
Regards Sri On 6/18/14 8:43 AM, "Brian Haberman" <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: >Hi Fred, > >On 6/18/14 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Hi Jouni, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:00 AM >>> To: Templin, Fred L; dmm@ietf.org >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
