I believe this is accurate. ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 484-962-0060 e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 w) www.comcast6.net =========================================
-----Original Message----- From: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:27 AM To: John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com>, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Mark Townsley <m...@townsley.net>, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net>, "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>, David Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net>, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> Subject: Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks >On 2/24/13 9:41 AM, Brzozowski, John wrote: >> DLNA seems to have some challenges seeing how IPv6 is relevant for them >>in >> the future, I think UPnP has done some work however upper layer >> protocols/applications must still require the use of the same. >Practically speaking, iirc they have to some challenges to make their >toolchain work across more than one subnet. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> >> Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:24 AM >> To: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> >> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com>, Michael Richardson >> <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Mark Townsley <m...@townsley.net>, Dave Taht >> <dave.t...@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net>, John Jason >> Brzozowski <john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com>, "homenet@ietf.org Group" >> <homenet@ietf.org>, David Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net> >> Subject: Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks >> >>> joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> On 2/21/13 7:04 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >>>> So, I think what we can observe from the number of readily >>>>discoverable >>>> security cameras on the internet. was that the real-live requirement >>>> was >>>> at least partially solved thanks to upnp and dynamic dns registration, >>>> is not a geek-only-oddity, survives renumbering, and was for the most >>>> part done quite badly. hopefully it can be done better in the future. >>> I was under the impression that upnp is exactly what we should not be >>> aspiring to, >>> but that we'll get by default (like natv6) if nothing useful happens in >>> ietf. >>> >>> Mike >> > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
