On 07/01/2011 14:17, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/01/2011 13:03, Kenneth Voort wrote:
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow
end users to reach the IPv6 Internet from an IPv4-only provider
through some means, perhaps
On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/01/2011 14:17, Keith Moore wrote:
Whenever people talk about the Internet as if it were just about
access to content, I have to wonder.The Internet has always
been more about conversation than content.
The overwhelming majority
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
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
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
On Jun 30, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:33 PM, 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,
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to
reach the IPv6 Internet
from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or
minimal administrator
intervention. I can see many providers remaining
On 07/01/2011 13:03, Kenneth Voort wrote:
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to
reach the IPv6 Internet
from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or
minimal administrator
intervention. I can see many providers remaining
From: Kenneth Voort listbounce...@voort.ca
future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to reach the IPv6
Internet from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps
tunneling, with no or minimal administrator intervention.
Innocent face=on
You mean, like with 6to4?
On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Kenneth Voort wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to
reach the IPv6 Internet
from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or
minimal
On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/01/2011 13:03, Kenneth Voort wrote:
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to
reach the IPv6 Internet
from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or
minimal administrator
On 06/30/2011 02:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to
stress that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort...
however, I think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear
to me why/how typical IPv6 home networks
Fernando,
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
Jari,
On 06/30/2011 06:38 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
But their architecture is largely done and cannot be easily affected.
Vendors are now looking into adding IPv6 into their home routers and
other devices. I want to be able to show them how to do it right. They
can, of course, replicate
Fernando,
My point is: Will implementation of the produced RFCs lead to home
networks in which stuff works for IPv6 differently from how it works for
IPv4?
That is the plan. And when I say differently, I mean differences such as
* prefix delegation
* global addresses and firewalls instead
Hi, Mark (and Jari),
Thanks so much for your clarification! All my questions/comments have
been addressed.
Thanks,
Fernando
On 06/30/2011 06:57 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
On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Jari,
On 06/30/2011 06:38 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
But their architecture is largely done and cannot be easily affected.
Vendors are now looking into adding IPv6 into their home routers and
other devices. I want to be able to show them how to
On 06/30/2011 09:21 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
If our work focuses only on IPv6, I get the impression that we're
heading in that direction.
nothing says that some results of the work can't also apply to IPv4.
but people are far too mired in outdated assumptions today, such as
the idea that
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote:
My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to stress
that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort... however, I
think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear to me why/how
typical IPv6 home networks would be
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
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
-Original Message-
From: homegate-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homegate-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: 30. juni 2011 07:12
To: Fernando Gont
Cc: homeg...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando
Agreed. I would phrase it this way:
How to do IPv6 in an IPv4 world.
Some points from the Description:
o Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is
increasingly available in home gateway devices.
This is only *part* of the story. *Users* have lots of IPv4
devices in
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...
regards, kiwin
On 6/30/2011 2:57 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
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 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...
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
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
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:33 PM, 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
On Jun 30, 2011, at 09:36 , Keith Moore wrote:
when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't
matter whether it's also useful for IPv4.
please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IPv4
brain damage.
I suspect what Mr. Townsley and Mr.
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
