On 06/30/2011 02:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson 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. 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) >> 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 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. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf