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
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Weil, Jason
- [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Jari Arkko
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Cameron Byrne
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Keith Moore
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Dan White
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal erik.taraldsen
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Stephen [kiwin] PALM
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Fernando Gont
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Keith Moore
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Keith Moore
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… james woodyatt
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Martin Focazio
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Keith Moore
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Keith Moore
- Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group propos… james woodyatt
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Roger Jørgensen
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal ken carlberg
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Fred Baker
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal ken carlberg
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Mark Townsley
- Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Randy Turner