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
communication instance.
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
communicate anymore.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando(_at_)gont(_dot_)com(_dot_)ar || fgont(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf