Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group proposal

"Stephen [kiwin] PALM" <> Thu, 30 June 2011 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A6E11E818C; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5aEPfsfx2Wo; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DE411E8185; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:14:46 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:09:51 -0700
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF2B74D04; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:09:50 -0700
From: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Weil, Jason" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-WSS-ID: 62124D6C3B411829987-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [homegate] [fun] HOMENET working group proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:10:34 -0000

On 6/30/2011 8:06 AM, Weil, Jason wrote:

> Overall I like the concept of not breaking core IPv4 functionality while
> focussing all new functionality to IPv6.

It is more than just IPv4 functionality... it is all the deployed
applications and devices that utilize IPv4.... and for whatever
reason, cannot be "upgraded" to IPv6. 8-)

regards, kiwin

> On 6/30/11 5:57 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:
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> homegate mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> fun mailing list
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> fun mailing list

Stephen [kiwin] Palm   Ph.D.                          E:
Senior Technical Director                             T: +1-949-926-PALM
Broadcom Broadband Communications Group               F: +1-949-926-7256
Irvine, California                               W:
Secondary email accounts: