Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

In message <5C263F1C-A180-4EFC-A44F-3E867C6CF4DC@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 work only within the confines of IP
> v4 brain damage.
> 
> I suspect what Mr. Townsley and Mr. Arkko are aiming at here is that if FUN c
> an come up with a scheme to make routed home subnetworks work with delegated 
> IPv6 prefixes, then it is probably not too far-fetched that the same scheme c
> ould be trivially extended for assigning IPv4 subnets from the RFC 1918 priva
> te realm to support dual-stack routed home subnetworks.
> 
> I'm not expecting home networks to be able to run IPv6-only with the IPv4 Int
> ernet mapped to 64:ff9b::/96 through NAT64 for several more years yet.  There
> 's a whole crapload of legacy IPv4-only devices in the average home theater s
> ystem today that nobody wants to cut off from the Internet just yet.

I'm expecting home nets to be dual stacked for 10+ years after IPv6
is common to the home (2-5) years.  If the home gateway has DS-Lite
support then that provides a better solution than NAT 444.  It also
continues to work when the home net goes IPv6 only with the home
gateway passing on the DS-Lite parameters from the ISP.

Consumer electronics lasts 10+ years.  I'm still using my DOCSIS
1.0 modem 8+ years.  My router hardware is 13+ years old, the
software is newer and is the 6in4 tunnel end point.  I've got TV's
of similar vintage.

> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, core os networking
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fun mailing list
> fun@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org