I'd like to second the relaxation of "wherever possible", which may lead to a suboptimal solution for several components.
JP Vasseur Cisco Fellow Sent from Blackberry ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Townsley [mailto:m...@townsley.net] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:33 AM To: Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>; f...@ietf.org <f...@ietf.org>; homeg...@ietf.org <homeg...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:57 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 > > I'd like for this group to relax the "wherever possible" bit, so as to not > preclude solutions where IPv6 can do a better job than IPv4. Yes, and I think that IPv6 should naturally do a better job than IPv4 in the cases where it can. My original mail had this restatement of the above, which I think gets closer to what you want: >> 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 > > IPv4 is a dinosaur gasping for its last breaths. > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > homegate mailing list > homeg...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate _______________________________________________ fun mailing list f...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
