Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Keith Moore <> Fri, 01 July 2011 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8485011E8148; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.569
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oi6MpFJXu2Hr; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5406821F84D7; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5552B20905; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:36:12 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=qpQfdnE3I93odyBFsVX+LbxFeGs=; b=lUGVFN02KT0lSochgz5ZpIhKBdjHgELi0QT1TSItpDuRMfgJ29blkR+YfktT/xUZuV86O+fdGjB/jlNanGfWhjtAxRlKxrMy5DwPp8Bff3WcTWtVnVlDhJDhQHNWBrkTMrg650AZdsyRCFY43LHJtukQ6BkGyE/CWHP+kLCKV3k=
X-Sasl-enc: i0cKhgjK5+moYNIol8osIEUhU+TVYZyUBERv5RehBeVl 1309527371
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E91A40444B; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:35:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mark Townsley <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:02:54 -0700
Cc: IETF Discussion <>,,
Subject: Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:36:35 -0000

On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:

> 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.