On 2/24/13 9:41 AM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
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.
Practically speaking, iirc they have to some challenges to make their
toolchain work across more than one subnet.
-----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
