Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group proposal

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Fri, 01 July 2011 08:02 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 1E95121F88A5; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 2wUoPGfsy0H5; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:02:04 -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 A138221F88A3; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so2342021wyj.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.229.220 with SMTP id h70mr874611weq.1.1309507322743; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:02:02 -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 fu18sm2164925wbb.10.2011.07.01.01.02.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-487637714
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E0D0281.3020608@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:01:59 +0200
Message-Id: <E8C8737F-7B2F-492A-B821-8A8FCBC96FE5@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> <4E0D0281.3020608@raszuk.net>
To: robert@raszuk.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: fun@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homegate] [fun] 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 08:02:05 -0000

On Jul 1, 2011, at 1:10 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> 
> I think this is a great WG proposal and I fully support it's creation.
> 
> However my ISP is telling me that it has sufficient pool of IPv4 addresses for the min next 5-10 years so rolling v6 for residential users is completely not that much appealing to him.

My ISP has v6 to a half-million homes and doesn't know how to deal with multiple v6 subnets (among other things) aside of manual configuration. But let's stay out of "my ISP says" discussions. Clearly, we can come up with anecdotes at every extreme. What's important is that, globally, IPv6 deployment is finally on the rise and implementations are appearing in commercial products targeted at the home. 

You are probably running IPv6 in your home anyway if you have a Mac, linux, or windows machine circa Vista or later. It may be disconnected from the Internet (or is possibly connected via some automatic tunnel that you may or may not be aware of), but even link-local IPv6 in the home is something that should work correctly. 

> 
> IETF can build many specs recommending v6 deployments, protocol extensions and network architectures. Unfortunately before the day  when there is first attractive real content available online _only_ via v6 or when there is new killer app which works only over v6 I think the world will become more and more fragmented into islands of v4, v4v6 and v6 only.
> 
> The issue is not technical here and IETF will not I am afraid be able to fix it.

There are technical issues with deploying IPv6 in the home, and that is what homenet is slated to work on. 

> The issue is purely business driven and till all providers get clear message from their users that they must have v6 as they can not google anymore, pay their bills, use new fancy holographic movie downloader app (just as examples) the migration towards v6 may take not 10 but 50 to 100 years.

Ah yes, the Killer App - it would all too easy if IPv6 had a visicalc or wordstar equivalent to drive sales, wouldn't it? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application

That discussion is not really within the scope of this WG though.

- Mark

> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> fun mailing list
> fun@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun