Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 30 June 2011 10:02 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1C421F87AD; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.342
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7ARBOLY90SB; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A98721F8737; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CCB2CEA0; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:02:57 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eb0i9G78I0XA; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:02:56 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4B62CC39; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:02:55 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4E0C49CD.30505@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:02:53 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300707370.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4E0C1CF8.7090601@gont.com.ar> <4E0C4417.90804@piuha.net> <4E0C4631.3010409@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4E0C4631.3010409@gont.com.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "fun@ietf.org" <fun@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
X-BeenThere: fun@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "FUture home Networking \(FUN\)" <fun.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun>
List-Post: <mailto:fun@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:02:58 -0000
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 of private addresses and NATs * across-subnet communication internally in the home can be routed, not NATted > e.g., your home network would have multiple subnets (thanks to > PD), but a single IPv4 subnet? > But the examples you cite are not differences we are really aiming at. Multiple subnets is something that generally should be avoided where possible, but cannot be completely avoided. It applies to IPv4 and IPv6 in equal manner, e.g., when you have a Guest and Private SSIDs on your wireless. In this case the difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is merely that in one case we NAT to the Internet and between the two networks, in another case we route/firewall. > If our work focuses only on IPv6, I get the impression that we're > heading in that direction. > > If HOMENET is going to improve stuff that we already do with IPv4 (by > leveraging IPv6), then that's fine... but not what I read from this > discussion and the proposed charter. > My point is that I don't think we can change the IPv4 situation. We can affect the way IPv6 is used. Maybe we can even make things better in IPv6 than they were in IPv4. So in the end the user experience may improve for people who use IPv6, but it is definitely not our goal to improve IPv4. Jari
- Re: [fun] HOMENET working group proposal Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Fernando Gont
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Fernando Gont
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Fernando Gont
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Weil, Jason
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Fernando Gont
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Ralph Droms (rdroms)
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Ralph Droms (rdroms)
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… james woodyatt
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Edward Arthurs
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Andrews
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… james woodyatt
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Martin Focazio
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… james woodyatt
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Kenneth Voort
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Doug Barton
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… james woodyatt
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Doug Barton
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Kenneth Voort
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Erik Kline
- Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore