On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > The idea is not to go out of our way for IPv4, but if the topic is IP agnostic anyway, so be it. To be clear, there is no *requirement* to support IPv4 here. However, there is no requirement to avoid IPv4 *if* it doesn't cause significant concession in the IPv6 design either. > > This cuts both ways, if there is something that is working well in IPv4 that we need to carry over to IPv6 with simple extensions, we'll do that and capitalizing on that running-code should be considered a good thing. We don't want to invent new v6 protocols from scratch that don't work with IPv4 when there is no need. For example (and I think this is hinted at in the charter), we might use naming and service discovery that already exists for IPv4, adapted the the v6 homenet. This doesn't mean we need to re-invent a v6-only naming system from scratch - i'd much rather use one that is there, which very well may support v4 and v6. > >> >> please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IPv4 brain damage. > > What I think I am saying here is that we will do our best to perform as if our brains are not damaged, and equally try to avoid damaging our brains in the process. +1 Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf