Re: [smartpowerdir] Pushing IPv6

[Vint Cerf <[e-mail]>]

ack and agree.

v

On Feb 14, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> In my mind, "IP" is the "Internet Protocol", of which we have two  
> versions. Various IEC standards tunnel one thing or another through  
> UDP/IPv4 or TCP/IPv4; none of them use IPv6. That is two of the  
> issues thta have to be handled - native, not tunnel, and permit IPv6.
>
> "...even if they are up for general use of [some Internet Protocol]  
> would like to use the [IPv4, which] they have deployed."
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>
>> Fred,
>>
>> In your note you use the acronym IP twice. Is the first use  
>> Internet Protocol and the second Intellectual Property?
>>
>> I will make the point in the SGIPGB that if IP is going to be used,  
>> it is foolish not to use IPv6 even if one needs to have a device in  
>> the home that speaks IPv6 to all the appliances and sensors and  
>> IPv4 (and IPv6) to the outside world for convenience in the near  
>> term.
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding is that politics within the SGIP precluded them  
>>> from saying that. One thing we should do is get a better handle on  
>>> those politics; I suspect that the Enernex consultant is not  
>>> completely unbiased (he champions the idea that the grid has  
>>> "points of interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than  
>>> general communications interoperability), and there are probably  
>>> others who even if they are up for general use of IP would like to  
>>> use the IP that they have deployed.
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>
>>>> ARIN has sent NIST a message saying that it is not possible to  
>>>> get enough IPv4 addresses to support SmartGrid.  However, the  
>>>> NIST document does not include a statement of preference for  
>>>> IPv6.  How can we make that happen
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>>>
>>
>
> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>