Re: [smartpowerdir] Pushing IPv6

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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