On 6/30/2011 8:06 AM, Weil, Jason wrote:
Overall I like the concept of not breaking core IPv4 functionality while
focussing all new functionality to IPv6.
It is more than just IPv4 functionality... it is all the deployed
applications and devices that utilize IPv4.... and for whatever
reason, cannot be "upgraded" to IPv6. 8-)
regards, kiwin
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.
_______________________________________________
fun mailing list
fun@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
--
Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E: palm@xxxxxxxxx
Senior Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM
Broadcom Broadband Communications Group F: +1-949-926-7256
Irvine, California W: http://www.kiwin.com
Secondary email accounts: stephenpalm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx palm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
s.palm@xxxxxxxx palm@xxxxxx spalm@xxxxxxxxxx palm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf