Given the 5-year lead time to get a protocol suite done in the IETF, why would we start by looking backward? On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 6/29/11 8:32 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >>> However it does not follow that home networks need NAT or private address space. Those are hacks of the 1990s. They always were shortsighted, and they turned out to be an operational disaster. We can do better. >> >> We can and should, but it's pretty clear that if the IETF >> were good at evangelizing we wouldn't be in this situation >> in the first place. The focus really needs to be on producing >> good, secure protocols that work on the networks we've got. > > ...or the networks we can see coming in the near future. ZigBee Alliance is driving an IPv6-based multi-link architecture through planned deployments of SE2.0 by several utilities. BBF and CableLabs both expect IPv6, end-to-end connectivity > > Homenet will avoid breaking existing IPv4 deployments in the networks we've got today, but won't spend resources on unnecessary (in some cases impossible) feature parity. > > - Ralph >> >> Melinda >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf