Given the 5-year lead time to get a protocol suite done in the IETF, why would we start by looking backward?
On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/29/11 8:32 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >>> However it does not follow that home networks need NAT or private address >>> space. Those are hacks of the 1990s. They always were shortsighted, and >>> they turned out to be an operational disaster. We can do better. >> >> We can and should, but it's pretty clear that if the IETF >> were good at evangelizing we wouldn't be in this situation >> in the first place. The focus really needs to be on producing >> good, secure protocols that work on the networks we've got. > > ...or the networks we can see coming in the near future. ZigBee Alliance is > driving an IPv6-based multi-link architecture through planned deployments of > SE2.0 by several utilities. BBF and CableLabs both expect IPv6, end-to-end > connectivity > > Homenet will avoid breaking existing IPv4 deployments in the networks we've > got today, but won't spend resources on unnecessary (in some cases > impossible) feature parity. > > - Ralph >> >> Melinda >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
