Anytime we develop standards, the standards apply to future products. There's no point in defining standards for applications and devices that are already deployed. Sure, it's nice to have backward compatibility. But I don't think anyone is likely to propose standards for HOMENET that will significantly break compatibility with existing products. It's not as if the set of applications and devices that one uses in a home network is disjoint from the set of applications and devices used in other networks. And it's reasonable to expect that users of existing applications and devices might need to do some special-case configuration to get those applications and devices to continue to work. Just to pick one example, if a legacy device is v4-only, and the only access available is NATted v4 or native v6, there might be a need to configure the device to be externally accessible using a v6 address. The home network might support v4 internally but there might not be v4 service available outside that enclave. Backward compatibility = good. Insisting that home networks always use the same kludges that are used now = bad. Maybe the right answer is that the HOMENET group should consider what means are needed to provide some measure of compatibility with legacy devices and applications, that might continue to be used with networks meeting the new standards. The working group seems like it's in a much better position than the IETF list to propose reasonable compromises on these issues. Keith On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote: > It is not for "us" to decide when a user's network is not worth expending > any more energy on. They have deployed their network... > and do not want to expend any more energy themselves. If their SP deploys > IPv6 inelegantly, the user would have a lot of frustration/work. Which > will generate many expensive tech support calls... and potentially lost customers. > > It's not the protocols... it's the DEPLOYED APPLICATIONS and DEVICES that users have. > > regards, kiwin > > On 6/30/2011 9:11 AM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> >> "Gone" isn't so important as "not worth expending any more energy on.". So I'm with Keith and would like to find some words like "when it doesn't take any more work." >> >> - Ralph >> >> On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:00 PM, "Fernando Gont"<fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 06/30/2011 12:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >>>> I'd like for this group to relax the "wherever possible" bit, so as to not preclude solutions where IPv6 can do a better job than IPv4. >>>> >>>> IPv4 is a dinosaur gasping for its last breaths. >>> >>> Just curious: when you expect IPv4 to be gone? (including "gone" from >>> home and enterprise networks) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Fernando Gont >>> e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx >>> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fun mailing list >>> fun@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf