On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont 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.
A more routed home instead of pure L2 one.
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 personally consider this property of "end-to-end connectivity" as "gone". -- among other reasons, because it would require a change of mindset. I'm more of the idea that people will replicate the architecture of their IPv4 networks with IPv6, in which end-systems are not reachable from the public Internet.
I think this will also change, but not for all devices from all of the Internet. Still, I believe there is a place for a working group to look at this.
I have subscribed already. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf