Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

On Jun 30, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote:

> Thanks Mark for stating that.
> It would really be helpful if this type of text is included in the description/charter.
> The lack of of this information in the recently distributed material caused
> several immediate allergic reactions...

I'm happy to include it in the next rev.

- Mark

> 
> regards, kiwin
> 
> On 6/30/2011 2:57 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
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> homegate mailing list
>> homegate@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Stephen [kiwin] Palm   Ph.D.                          E:  palm@kiwin.com
> Senior Technical Director                             T: +1-949-926-PALM
> Broadcom Broadband Communications Group               F: +1-949-926-7256
> Irvine, California                               W: http://www.kiwin.com
> Secondary email accounts:  stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu  palm@broadcom.com
> s.palm@ieee.org  palm@itu.ch  spalm@cs.cmu.edu  palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> homegate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate