Gone isn't so important as not worth expending any more energy on.. So I'm
with Keith and would like to find some words like when it doesn't take any
more work.
- Ralph
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
On 06/30/2011 12:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd
It is not for us to decide when a user's network is not worth expending
any more energy on. They have deployed their network...
and do not want to expend any more energy themselves. If their SP deploys
IPv6 inelegantly, the user would have a lot of frustration/work. Which
will generate many
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM p...@broadcom.com wrote:
It is not for us to decide when a user's network is not worth expending
any more energy on. They have deployed their network...
and do not want to expend any more energy themselves. If their SP deploys
IPv6
Anytime we develop standards, the standards apply to future products. There's
no point in defining standards for applications and devices that are already
deployed.
Sure, it's nice to have backward compatibility. But I don't think anyone is
likely to propose standards for HOMENET that will
Mark,
100% in agreement with this stance.
Just to echo what Fernando has already stated, you can't completely ignore
IPv4 in the home network especially when you are talking about a
multi-segmented network. For example RFC6204 calls for a separate /64 on
each LAN interface per the L-2
On 6/30/2011 8:06 AM, Weil, Jason wrote:
Overall I like the concept of not breaking core IPv4 functionality while
focussing all new functionality to IPv6.
It is more than just IPv4 functionality... it is all the deployed
applications and devices that utilize IPv4 and for whatever
On Jun 30, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 06/30/2011 12:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
IPv4 is a dinosaur gasping for its last breaths.
Just
Weil, Jason wrote:
Overall I like the concept of not breaking core IPv4 functionality while
focussing all new functionality to IPv6.
Remember that IPv6 became unusably complex by impossible attempts
to add new functionality not available with IPv4, which implies
that there is no such thing as
In message 5c263f1c-a180-4efc-a44f-3e867c6cf...@apple.com, james woodyatt wri
tes:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 09:36 , Keith Moore wrote:
when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't ma
tter whether it's also useful for IPv4.
please don't constrain home networks to
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
