ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: HOMENET working group proposal

2011-06-30 06:59:01
Given the 5-year lead time to get a protocol suite done in the IETF, why would 
we start by looking backward?

On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:





On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Melinda Shore 
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 6/29/11 8:32 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
However it does not follow that home networks need NAT or private address 
space.  Those are hacks of the 1990s.  They always were shortsighted, and 
they turned out to be an operational disaster.  We can do better.

We can and should, but it's pretty clear that if the IETF
were good at evangelizing we wouldn't be in this situation
in the first place.  The focus really needs to be on producing
good, secure protocols that work on the networks we've got.

...or the networks we can see coming in the near future.  ZigBee Alliance is 
driving an IPv6-based multi-link architecture through planned deployments of 
SE2.0 by several utilities.  BBF and CableLabs both expect IPv6, end-to-end 
connectivity 

Homenet will avoid breaking existing IPv4 deployments in the networks we've 
got today, but won't spend resources on unnecessary (in some cases 
impossible) feature parity.

- Ralph

Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf