On 06/30/2011 09:21 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
If our work focuses only on IPv6, I get the impression that we're
heading in that direction.
nothing says that some results of the work can't also apply to IPv4.
but people are far too mired in outdated assumptions today, such as
the idea that every network needs a NAT or a firewall that filters
based on IP addresses and ports.
I did not even argue about ports or addressing, but rather about who
initiated the communication instance.
If HOMENET is going to improve stuff that we already do with IPv4
(by leveraging IPv6), then that's fine...
no, that's not fine. that's painting ourselves (and the Internet)
into a corner.
I was mostly referring to not breaking what already works with v4 (i.e.,
not be a MUST for all devices in a home network to support some v6
feature for the network to work, such that our existing v4-only devices
can co-exist in whatever v6 home-network architecture we envision).
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