Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

["Stephen [kiwin] PALM" <[e-mail]>]

Agreed. I would phrase it this way:
How to do IPv6 in an IPv4 world.

Some points from the Description:
  > o Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is
  > increasingly available in home gateway devices.

This is only *part* of the story.  *Users* have lots of IPv4
devices in their home.

  > o service discovery
This is already well handled by UPnP/DLNA

  > o managing routing

There were several snippets regarding routing/subnets/heterogeneous networking
technologies.  There is already work proceeding in IEEE P1905.1
to address issues related to multiple network technologies
via a MAC/PHY Abstraction Layer.  Also there are applications today
that expect a single subnet, so new architectures should not preclude
existing applications.

regards, kiwin

On 6/29/2011 11:51 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 02:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to
>>> stress that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort...
>>> however, I think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear
>>> to me why/how typical IPv6 home networks would be much different from
>>> their IPv4 counterparts.
>>
>> In my mind, I see the possibility of /56 PD enabling different subnets
>> for different kinds of devices with different security and functional
>> needs, and also chaining of L3 devices. This definitely warrants a group
>> to look at that.
>
> 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)
>
>
>>> One would hope/expect that the former will be gone with IPv6. However,
>>> I don't think the latter will. As a result, even when you could
>>> "address" nodes that belong to the "home network", you probably won't
>>> be able to get your packets to them, unless those nodes initiated the
>>> communication instance.
>>
>> This is exactly why the whole "system" needs to work, including uPNP
>> like functionality for nodes to talk to the firewall(s).
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,

-- 
Stephen [kiwin] Palm   Ph.D.                          E:  [e-mail]
Senior Technical Director                             T: +1-949-926-PALM
Broadcom Broadband Communications Group               F: [phone]
Irvine, California                               W: http://www.kiwin.com
Secondary email accounts:  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]