On Jun 30, 2011, at 09:36 , Keith Moore wrote: > > when the group can define something that is useful in IPv6, it shouldn't > matter whether it's also useful for IPv4. > please don't constrain home networks to work only within the confines of IPv4 > brain damage.
I suspect what Mr. Townsley and Mr. Arkko are aiming at here is that if FUN can come up with a scheme to make routed home subnetworks work with delegated IPv6 prefixes, then it is probably not too far-fetched that the same scheme could be trivially extended for assigning IPv4 subnets from the RFC 1918 private realm to support dual-stack routed home subnetworks. I'm not expecting home networks to be able to run IPv6-only with the IPv4 Internet mapped to 64:ff9b::/96 through NAT64 for several more years yet. There's a whole crapload of legacy IPv4-only devices in the average home theater system today that nobody wants to cut off from the Internet just yet. -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
