On Jun 30, 2011, at 09:36 , Keith Moore wrote:
when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't
matter whether it's also useful for IPv4.
please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IPv4
I suspect what Mr. Townsley and Mr. Arkko are aiming at here is that if FUN can
come up with a scheme to make routed home subnetworks work with delegated IPv6
prefixes, then it is probably not too far-fetched that the same scheme could be
trivially extended for assigning IPv4 subnets from the RFC 1918 private realm
to support dual-stack routed home subnetworks.
I'm not expecting home networks to be able to run IPv6-only with the IPv4
Internet mapped to 64:ff9b::/96 through NAT64 for several more years yet.
There's a whole crapload of legacy IPv4-only devices in the average home
theater system today that nobody wants to cut off from the Internet just yet.
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, core os networking
Ietf mailing list