Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 30 June 2011 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
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 03B9B21F882D; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, 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 Pl+ZmQ8mNrlL; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E692121F8822; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so1036878gxk.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ceNvLYYz88AOYiiSc3h3adcXQriY4SadLP/RMKLgZ4c=; b=BPio+iKqZtkPtuYXdBhqLnua+MWBo+V7CkLPLzHZNV3IHd5cPvw8HFXruLgce901jQ mFK6uJLMsBuHuEQKv/60phXtbeuNvSu8TH29MGkxx2Cf+IDPIihGrXqb1mtN5suafcvz rSl8y7wZMSrQPypnpYHs7V1JPdRkrfjn5G4uQ=
Received: by 10.101.154.22 with SMTP id g22mr1654733ano.58.1309430423272; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.103] ([190.48.255.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r19sm1890175and.26.2011.06.30.03.40.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E0C5291.8030104@gont.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:40:17 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Townsley <mark@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>
In-Reply-To: <558D0669-8B2A-4514-B3FB-C690C40A4EF8@townsley.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: fun@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@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 10:40:25 -0000

Hi, Mark (and Jari),

Thanks so much for your clarification! All my questions/comments have
been addressed.

Thanks,
Fernando




On 06/30/2011 06:57 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
> 
> In other words, anything we do for the IPv6 homenet cannot actively
> break what's already running on IPv4. Also, trying to define what the
> IPv4 home network should be has long reached a point of diminishing
> returns given the effort in doing so coupled with our ability to
> significantly affect what's already deployed. There's still hope we
> can help direct IPv6, as such that is homenet's primary focus.
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> 
>>> 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)
>> 
>> Chaining NAT boxes already work. I also feel that we shouldn't put
>> in a lot of work to develop IPv4 further, that focus should be put
>> on IPv6.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> IPv4 should be excluded because it's a dead end, and we all know
>> it. We're just disagreeing when it's going to die and how.
>> 
>> -- Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se 
>> _______________________________________________ homegate mailing
>> list homegate@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
> 
> _______________________________________________ homegate mailing
> list homegate@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
> 


-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1