Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont 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.

A more routed home instead of pure L2 one.

> 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 personally consider this property of "end-to-end connectivity" as 
> "gone". -- among other reasons, because it would require a change of 
> mindset. I'm more of the idea that people will replicate the 
> architecture of their IPv4 networks with IPv6, in which end-systems are 
> not reachable from the public Internet.

I think this will also change, but not for all devices from all of the 
Internet. Still, I believe there is a place for a working group to look at 
this.

I have subscribed already.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]