Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Thu, 30 June 2011 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
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 7AC6721F8765; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 rMCF1xRJkbPN; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667EF21F8718; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so1629381wyj.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.195.13 with SMTP id ea13mr1680580wbb.0.1309427830425; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-townsley-8714.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex2sm1506729wbb.14.2011.06.30.02.57.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300923280.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:57:06 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <558D0669-8B2A-4514-B3FB-C690C40A4EF8@townsley.net>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300923280.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se>
To: homegate@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, fun@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 09:57:12 -0000

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