DLNA seems to have some challenges seeing how IPv6 is relevant for them in the future, I think UPnP has done some work however upper layer protocols/applications must still require the use of the same.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:24 AM To: Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]>, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Dave Taht <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, David Lamparter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks >joel jaeggli wrote: >> On 2/21/13 7:04 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> So, I think what we can observe from the number of readily discoverable >> security cameras on the internet. was that the real-live requirement >>was >> at least partially solved thanks to upnp and dynamic dns registration, >> is not a geek-only-oddity, survives renumbering, and was for the most >> part done quite badly. hopefully it can be done better in the future. > >I was under the impression that upnp is exactly what we should not be >aspiring to, >but that we'll get by default (like natv6) if nothing useful happens in >ietf. > >Mike _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
