Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Fri, 01 July 2011 08:53 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 3A9F721F87AA; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, 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 tM0+oPmkZUNK; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:53:43 -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 0965C21F86F4; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so2373562wyj.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.132.214 with SMTP id o64mr2564631wei.75.1309510421783; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:53:41 -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 u38sm700625weq.37.2011.07.01.01.53.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:53:39 -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: <DC5C1553-38E9-4853-9AEA-61FC34FC5EC8@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:53:37 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0B6FEF9D-430B-4C56-BB21-40C5ED888B51@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> <780C3063-AD82-46F3-874A-C4E1E61EE508@townsley.net> <DC5C1553-38E9-4853-9AEA-61FC34FC5EC8@network-heretics.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, homegate@ietf.org, fun@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: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:53:44 -0000

On Jun 30, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

> On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:33 PM, 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.
> 
> when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't matter whether it's also useful for IPv4.

The idea is not to go out of our way for IPv4, but if the topic is IP agnostic anyway, so be it. To be clear, there is no *requirement* to support IPv4 here. However, there is no requirement to avoid IPv4 *if* it doesn't cause significant concession in the IPv6 design either.

This cuts both ways, if there is something that is working well in IPv4 that we need to carry over to IPv6 with simple extensions, we'll do that and capitalizing on that running-code should be considered a good thing. We don't want to invent new v6 protocols from scratch that don't work with IPv4 when there is no need. For example (and I think this is hinted at in the charter), we might use naming and service discovery that already exists for IPv4, adapted the the v6 homenet. This doesn't mean we need to re-invent a v6-only naming system from scratch - i'd much rather use one that is there, which very well may support v4 and v6. 

> 
> please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IPv4 brain damage.

What I think I am saying here is that we will do our best to perform as if our brains are not damaged, and equally try to avoid damaging our brains in the process.

- Mark

> 
> Keith
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> homegate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate