Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 30 June 2011 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 2A3EA21F862E; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 xuF8YGmGH2vU; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F77E21F85AF; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9BCFF9C; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:25:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99AEC9A; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:25:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:25:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4E0C1CF8.7090601@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300923280.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" <homegate@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homegate] 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: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:26:02 -0000

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