Make it per-use-case and the use-case tells one what protocol to proxy. Thus the design is focused rather that looking at every protocol on the planet that the CE or the homenet could use.
Regards, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of homenet issue tracker Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:43 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [homenet] #8: Proxy or extend? #8: Proxy or extend? Do we wish to state a preference for how protocols that currently work within a single subnet can be made to work within a multi-subnet homenet site? Proxies could be defined at subnet boundaries (e.g. as per DHCPv6 relays) or protocols could be extended to site scope (e.g. the recent xmDNS proposal). Or is this a per-protocol decision? -- -------------------+--------------------------------------- Reporter: tjc@… | Owner: draft-ietf-homenet-arch@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: arch | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: -------------------+--------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/ticket/8> homenet <http://tools.ietf.org/homenet/> _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
