Fernando,
My point is: Will implementation of the produced RFCs lead to home
networks in which stuff works for IPv6 differently from how it works for
IPv4?
That is the plan. And when I say "differently", I mean differences such as
* prefix delegation
* global addresses and firewalls instead of private addresses and NATs
* across-subnet communication internally in the home can be routed, not
NATted
e.g., your home network would have multiple subnets (thanks to
PD), but a single IPv4 subnet?
But the examples you cite are not differences we are really aiming at.
Multiple subnets is something that generally should be avoided where
possible, but cannot be completely avoided. It applies to IPv4 and IPv6
in equal manner, e.g., when you have a Guest and Private SSIDs on your
wireless. In this case the difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is merely
that in one case we NAT to the Internet and between the two networks, in
another case we route/firewall.
If our work focuses only on IPv6, I get the impression that we're
heading in that direction.
If HOMENET is going to improve stuff that we already do with IPv4 (by
leveraging IPv6), then that's fine... but not what I read from this
discussion and the proposed charter.
My point is that I don't think we can change the IPv4 situation. We can
affect the way IPv6 is used. Maybe we can even make things better in
IPv6 than they were in IPv4. So in the end the user experience may
improve for people who use IPv6, but it is definitely not our goal to
improve IPv4.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf