On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > The idea is not to go out of our way for IPv4, but if the topic is IP > agnostic anyway, so be it. To be clear, there is no *requirement* to support > IPv4 here. However, there is no requirement to avoid IPv4 *if* it doesn't > cause significant concession in the IPv6 design either. > > This cuts both ways, if there is something that is working well in IPv4 that > we need to carry over to IPv6 with simple extensions, we'll do that and > capitalizing on that running-code should be considered a good thing. We don't > want to invent new v6 protocols from scratch that don't work with IPv4 when > there is no need. For example (and I think this is hinted at in the charter), > we might use naming and service discovery that already exists for IPv4, > adapted the the v6 homenet. This doesn't mean we need to re-invent a v6-only > naming system from scratch - i'd much rather use one that is there, which > very well may support v4 and v6. > >> >> please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of >> IPv4 brain damage. > > What I think I am saying here is that we will do our best to perform as if > our brains are not damaged, and equally try to avoid damaging our brains in > the process.
+1 Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
