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

"JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <jvasseur@cisco.com> Fri, 01 July 2011 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jvasseur@cisco.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 4215B21F869B; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 WunDwdCTiGS3; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821B821F86BD; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; l=1903; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309498215; x=1310707815; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:from:to:cc; bh=+Ltjwy5EJJwOl/+/MsYUAqAvJQKr07MYx1z2X1K3YIs=; b=OPq3j1dfSq9dNWtgpMoC5wcSUFY/59NzjbQNhSDeZIi+gTpQQ0rS/60J An7wVsEBPX+i6HrL0/3qt97nIHTdob9ke93ZrIjBuOIZwZMmu1McK9j+I wgLqmnFcJDvVwXRHJXLKU1g8Dmd5mWtM5j+93W66w0X21vxY2DjtntBXF I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvIAAKRaDU6tJV2a/2dsb2JhbABSmCuPMneIeaIlnXKGMgSHPo9xi08
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,456,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="725212169"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2011 05:30:14 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p615UEZJ019423; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 05:30:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-203.cisco.com ([72.163.62.210]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:30:14 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:30:14 -0500
Message-ID: <E104C094D4487643BB93F43875CBCBCF032BD3CF@XMB-RCD-203.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <780C3063-AD82-46F3-874A-C4E1E61EE508@townsley.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
Thread-Index: Acw3RGDhWzyvVlXSTKCZLwtsLh7yEgAa5NF6
From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: <mark@townsley.net>, <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2011 05:30:14.0580 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4627740:01CC37AF]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:22:55 -0700
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, homegate@ietf.org, fun@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 05:30:19 -0000

I'd like to second the relaxation of "wherever possible", which may lead to a suboptimal solution for several components.

JP Vasseur
Cisco Fellow

Sent from Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:mark@townsley.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>;
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>;; fun@ietf.org <fun@ietf.org>;; homegate@ietf.org <homegate@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal



On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

> 
> On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:57 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
> 
> 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.


- Mark

> 
> IPv4 is a dinosaur gasping for its last breaths.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> homegate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate

_______________________________________________
fun mailing list
fun@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun