I believe this is accurate. ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 484-962-0060 e) [email protected] o) 609-377-6594 w) www.comcast6.net =========================================
-----Original Message----- From: Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:27 AM To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Dave Taht <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, David Lamparter <[email protected]>, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks >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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
