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

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