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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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 but people are far too mired in outdated assumptions today, such as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 every network needs a NAT or a firewall that filters
> based on IP addresses and ports.

I did not even argue about ports or addressing, but rather about who
initiated the communication instance.


>> If HOMENET is going to improve stuff that we already do with IPv4
>> (by leveraging IPv6), then that's fine...
> 
> no, that's not fine.   that's painting ourselves (and the Internet)
> into a corner.

I was mostly referring to not breaking what already works with v4 (i.e.,
not be a MUST for all devices in a home network to support some v6
feature for the network to work, such that our existing v4-only devices
can co-exist in whatever v6 home-network architecture we envision).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1