On Jun 30, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote: > Thanks Mark for stating that. > It would really be helpful if this type of text is included in the > description/charter. > The lack of of this information in the recently distributed material caused > several immediate allergic reactions...
I'm happy to include it in the next rev. - Mark > > regards, kiwin > > On 6/30/2011 2:57 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >> >> I think the consensus we had in the past BoFs and discussion in and around >> this topic can be summed up as stating that homenet deliverables will: >> >> - coexist with (existing) IPv4 protocols, devices, applications, etc. >> - operate in a (future) IPv6-only home network in the absence of IPv4 >> - be IP-agnostic whenever possible >> >> In other words, anything we do for the IPv6 homenet cannot actively break >> what's already running on IPv4. Also, trying to define what the IPv4 home >> network should be has long reached a point of diminishing returns given the >> effort in doing so coupled with our ability to significantly affect what's >> already deployed. There's still hope we can help direct IPv6, as such that >> is homenet's primary focus. However, when we can define something that is >> needed for IPv6 in a way that is also useful for IPv4 without making >> significant concessions, we should go ahead and do so. >> >> - Mark >> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> >>>> My point was that, except for the mechanism for PD, I don't see a >>>> substantial difference here that would e.g. prevent this from being >>>> developed for IPv4 (in addition to IPv6). -- Yes, I know we need to deploy >>>> IPv6... but I don't think you can expect people to get rid of their >>>> *working* IPv4 devices... (i.e., not sure why any of this functionality >>>> should be v6-only) >>> >>> Chaining NAT boxes already work. I also feel that we shouldn't put in a lot >>> of work to develop IPv4 further, that focus should be put on IPv6. >>> >>>> I think this deserves a problem statement that clearly describes what we >>>> expect to be able to do (but currently can't), etc. And, if this is meant >>>> to be v6-only, state why v4 is excluded -- unless we're happy to have >>>> people connect their IPv4-devices, and see that they cannot communicate >>>> anymore. >>> >>> IPv4 should be excluded because it's a dead end, and we all know it. We're >>> just disagreeing when it's going to die and how. >>> >>> -- >>> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homegate mailing list >>> homeg...@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homegate mailing list >> homeg...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate >> > > -- > Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: p...@kiwin.com > Senior Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM > Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: +1-949-926-7256 > Irvine, California W: http://www.kiwin.com > Secondary email accounts: stephenp...@alumni.uci.edu p...@broadcom.com > s.p...@ieee.org p...@itu.ch sp...@cs.cmu.edu p...@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homeg...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
