Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Thu, 30 June 2011 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
X-Original-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B14E11E8244; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 j72G+ipxciEH; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E85711E8085; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so1915743wyj.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.237.8 with SMTP id x8mr256345weq.37.1309451653969; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-townsley-8714.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d7sm1227232wek.21.2011.06.30.09.34.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <0F995E91-9853-4018-91F0-0699E1A7A06F@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:33:58 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <780C3063-AD82-46F3-874A-C4E1E61EE508@townsley.net>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300923280.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se> <558D0669-8B2A-4514-B3FB-C690C40A4EF8@townsley.net> <0F995E91-9853-4018-91F0-0699E1A7A06F@network-heretics.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, fun@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:34:16 -0000

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 protocols, devices, applications, etc.
>> - operate in a (future) IPv6-only home network in the absence of IPv4
>> - be IP-agnostic whenever possible
> 
> 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.

Yes, and I think that IPv6 should naturally do a better job than IPv4 in the cases where it can. 

My original mail had this restatement of the above, which I think gets closer to what you want:

>> However, when we can define something that is needed for IPv6 in a way that is also useful for IPv4 without making significant concessions, we should go ahead and do so.


- Mark

> 
> IPv4 is a dinosaur gasping for its last breaths.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> homegate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate