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 but people are far too mired in outdated assumptions today, such as 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: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
