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

"Weil, Jason" <> Thu, 30 June 2011 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD8011E8166; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.163
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jDn6cAje65Fk; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B844A11E8165; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,450,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="244401990"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 30 Jun 2011 11:05:13 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:06:20 -0400
From: "Weil, Jason" <>
To: Mark Townsley <>, "" <>, IETF Discussion <>, "" <>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:06:18 -0400
Thread-Topic: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
Thread-Index: Acw3N0QENp1awgw7QgCuxWlYWR/P2g==
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:07:22 -0700
Subject: Re: [homegate] [fun] 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: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:06:21 -0000


100% in agreement with this stance.

Just to echo what Fernando has already stated, you can't completely ignore
IPv4 in the home network especially when you are talking about a
multi-segmented network. For example RFC6204 calls for a separate /64 on
each LAN interface per the L-2 requirement. In IPv4 these interfaces
nearly always operate in bridged mode. Supporting bridged IPv4 and routed
IPv6 on the same physical interface could pose a challenge.

Overall I like the concept of not breaking core IPv4 functionality while
focussing all new functionality to IPv6.


On 6/30/11 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
>- 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:
>> _______________________________________________
>> homegate mailing list
>fun mailing list

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.