On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont 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.
A more routed home instead of pure L2 one.
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 personally consider this property of "end-to-end connectivity" as
"gone". -- among other reasons, because it would require a change of
mindset. I'm more of the idea that people will replicate the
architecture of their IPv4 networks with IPv6, in which end-systems are
not reachable from the public Internet.
I think this will also change, but not for all devices from all of the
Internet. Still, I believe there is a place for a working group to look at
this.
I have subscribed already.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf