Agreed. I would phrase it this way:
How to do IPv6 in an IPv4 world.
Some points from the Description:
> o Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is
> increasingly available in home gateway devices.
This is only *part* of the story. *Users* have lots of IPv4
devices in their home.
> o service discovery
This is already well handled by UPnP/DLNA
> o managing routing
There were several snippets regarding routing/subnets/heterogeneous networking
technologies. There is already work proceeding in IEEE P1905.1
to address issues related to multiple network technologies
via a MAC/PHY Abstraction Layer. Also there are applications today
that expect a single subnet, so new architectures should not preclude
On 6/29/2011 11:51 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 06/30/2011 02:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson 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.
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)
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
This is exactly why the whole "system" needs to work, including uPNP
like functionality for nodes to talk to the firewall(s).
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
Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. E:
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(_at_)alumni(_dot_)uci(_dot_)edu
Ietf mailing list