Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Thu, 30 June 2011 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DE911E80C8; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:12:21 -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 4hpLWTbUTFH6; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC12911E8128; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5E7509C; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:12:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B39D9A; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:12:18 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:12:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: "" <>, IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [homegate] 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 05:12:22 -0000

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 

I have subscribed already.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: