Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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 would be much different from
>> their IPv4 counterparts.
> 
> In my mind, I see the possibility of /56 PD enabling different subnets
> for different kinds of devices with different security and functional
> needs, and also chaining of L3 devices. This definitely warrants a group
> to look at that.

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 *working* IPv4 devices... (i.e., not sure why any of this
functionality should be v6-only)


>> One would hope/expect that the former will be gone with IPv6. However,
>> I don't think the latter will. As a result, even when you could
>> "address" nodes that belong to the "home network", you probably won't
>> be able to get your packets to them, unless those nodes initiated the
>> communication instance.
> 
> This is exactly why the whole "system" needs to work, including uPNP
> like functionality for nodes to talk to the firewall(s).

I think this deserves a problem statement that clearly describes what we
expect to be able to do (but currently can't), etc. And, if this is
meant to be v6-only, state why v4 is excluded -- unless we're happy to
have people connect their IPv4-devices, and see that they cannot
communicate anymore.

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