-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to
reach the IPv6 Internet
from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or
minimal administrator
intervention. I can see many providers remaining IPv4-only long into the future.
On 11-06-30 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
In other words, anything we do for the IPv6 homenet cannot actively break
what's already running on IPv4. Also, trying to define what the IPv4 home
network should be has long reached a point of diminishing returns given the
effort in doing so coupled with our ability to significantly affect what's
already deployed. There's still hope we can help direct IPv6, as such that is
homenet's primary focus. 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
- --
Kenneth Voort - kenneth {at} voort <SPAMGUARD> {dot} ca
FDF1 6265 EBAB C05C FD06 1AED 158E 14D6 37CD E87F | pgp encrypted email
preferred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAk4OKCsACgkQFY4U1jfN6H8gawCgkTQmlcodjih+Pawf8YTLZYiI
7M4AoI2Bm7F+uBc2lmoo+IdHEpeklcf6
=Hv52
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf