Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 1D12511E8255; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, 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 RLizpg-a-mYA; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D5111E8247; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70064206A8; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:55 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=tTBwDGnemCORVN38Co+zkkB4Ezs=; b=Vh03ebhwSaCkchOF/nVJaQTrgwflglwy4jZkQ20PXqMEHRqTXFbDu+/Zc0UzK+1lUEFCYOJHQJldFpwMv4nP4B6Jcp1C1hpr8GxFxVx0QdVW2wuoUhmaM3/8CRnX04LFT643mG9kJrR7EH+3acdYDpn4fDl/8tanIlzHyYiAy6g=
X-Sasl-enc: 8/SypNtsIltWK8Y/YUYnihNlVq1/HhCoEnJWvsho6SS4 1309451814
Received: from host65-16-145-177.birch.net (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 61B16409DFC; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <780C3063-AD82-46F3-874A-C4E1E61EE508@townsley.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:36:36 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DC5C1553-38E9-4853-9AEA-61FC34FC5EC8@network-heretics.com>
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> <558D0669-8B2A-4514-B3FB-C690C40A4EF8@townsley.net> <0F995E91-9853-4018-91F0-0699E1A7A06F@network-heretics.com> <780C3063-AD82-46F3-874A-C4E1E61EE508@townsley.net>
To: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:40:47 -0700
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, fun@ietf.org, homegate@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 16:36:58 -0000

On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:33 PM, 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
>> 
>> I'd like for this group to relax the "wherever possible" bit, so as to not preclude solutions where IPv6 can do a better job than IPv4.
> 
> Yes, and I think that IPv6 should naturally do a better job than IPv4 in the cases where it can. 
> 
> My original mail had this restatement of the above, which I think gets closer to what you want:
> 
>>> 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.

when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't matter whether it's also useful for IPv4.

please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IPv4 brain damage.

Keith