I'd like to second the relaxation of "wherever possible", which may lead to a
suboptimal solution for several components.
JP Vasseur
Cisco Fellow
Sent from Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:mark(_at_)townsley(_dot_)net]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; fun(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<fun(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; homegate(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<homegate(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
I think the consensus we had in the past BoFs and discussion in and around
this topic can be summed up as stating that homenet deliverables will:
- coexist with (existing) IPv4 protocols, devices, applications, etc.
- operate in a (future) IPv6-only home network in the absence of IPv4
- be IP-agnostic whenever possible
I'd like for this group to relax the "wherever possible" bit, so as to not
preclude solutions where IPv6 can do a better job than IPv4.
Yes, and I think that IPv6 should naturally do a better job than IPv4 in the
cases where it can.
My original mail had this restatement of the above, which I think gets closer
to what you want:
However, when we can define something that is needed for IPv6 in a way that
is also useful for IPv4 without making significant concessions, we should go
ahead and do so.
- Mark
IPv4 is a dinosaur gasping for its last breaths.
Keith
_______________________________________________
homegate mailing list
homegate(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
_______________________________________________
fun mailing list
fun(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf