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

Mark,

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.

Jason

On 6/30/11 5:57 AM, "Mark Townsley" <mark@townsley.net> 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
>
>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: swmike@swm.pp.se
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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.