Hi, Mark (and Jari), Thanks so much for your clarification! All my questions/comments have been addressed. Thanks, Fernando On 06/30/2011 06:57 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > I think the consensus we had in the past BoFs and discussion in and > around this topic can be summed up as stating that homenet > deliverables will: > > - coexist with (existing) IPv4 protocols, devices, applications, > etc. - operate in a (future) IPv6-only home network in the absence of > IPv4 - be IP-agnostic whenever possible > > In other words, anything we do for the IPv6 homenet cannot actively > break what's already running on IPv4. Also, trying to define what the > IPv4 home network should be has long reached a point of diminishing > returns given the effort in doing so coupled with our ability to > significantly affect what's already deployed. There's still hope we > can help direct IPv6, as such that is homenet's primary focus. > However, when we can define something that is needed for IPv6 in a > way that is also useful for IPv4 without making significant > concessions, we should go ahead and do so. > > - Mark > > > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >>> 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) >> >> Chaining NAT boxes already work. I also feel that we shouldn't put >> in a lot of work to develop IPv4 further, that focus should be put >> on IPv6. >> >>> 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. >> >> IPv4 should be excluded because it's a dead end, and we all know >> it. We're just disagreeing when it's going to die and how. >> >> -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx >> _______________________________________________ homegate mailing >> list homegate@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > > _______________________________________________ homegate mailing > list homegate@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate > -- 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