Mark, 100% in agreement with this stance. Just to echo what Fernando has already stated, you can't completely ignore IPv4 in the home network especially when you are talking about a multi-segmented network. For example RFC6204 calls for a separate /64 on each LAN interface per the L-2 requirement. In IPv4 these interfaces nearly always operate in bridged mode. Supporting bridged IPv4 and routed IPv6 on the same physical interface could pose a challenge. Overall I like the concept of not breaking core IPv4 functionality while focussing all new functionality to IPv6. Jason On 6/30/11 5:57 AM, "Mark Townsley" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > >_______________________________________________ >fun mailing list >fun@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf