Subject: [homegate] "Advanced IPv6 CPE requirements" in scope for homegate?

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:25:45 +0100

Ole just presented an update on 
"draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-02", the slides are here:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/slides/v6ops-2.pdf

It includes a list of "hard stuff we punted on" from 
"draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04"

including:

1.  QoS 2.  Service Discovery
3.  DNS
4.  Multicast
5.  Arbitrary complex topologies
      1.  Prefix sub-delegation
      2.  Routing in the LAN
      3.  ...
6.  IPv6 transition mechanisms
7.  IPv6 only (NAT64)
8.  Firewall pinholing
9.  Multi-homing (also to non-congruent topologies)

Homegate was brought up, but it was unclear whether homegate considered 
such work in our out of scope of its efforts.

At one level, this doesn't matter aside of where the document sits and 
whether homegate, should it exist, operates on this directly or via a 
pointer to the v6ops WG, and this is as much an "AD management issue" as 
anything else. However, if we see ourselves taking on any of these for 
IPv4, I worry that we will end up solving problems in silos if they are 
not in the same document and/or same group.

Thoughts?

- Mark

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:00:41 -0500

At the IETF 77 meeting during the presentation by Ole, the INT AD Ralph
Droms asked if Phase II of the IPv6 CE Rtr could be overlap or be done
in homegate and then Fred Baker, co-chair of v6ops said he has talked to
Dave Oran (one of homegate leads) and Dave said it's ok that v6ops
handles Phase II work for the IPv6 CE Rtr.  This fact should be in the
meeting minutes of v6ops Friday morning session.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mark Townsley (townsley)
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [homegate] "Advanced IPv6 CPE requirements" in scope for
homegate?

including:

Thoughts?

- Mark

_______________________________________________
homegate mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 07:51:33 -0700

> Ole just presented an update on "draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-02", the slides are here:
> 
> It includes a list of "hard stuff we punted on" from "draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04"
> 
> including:
> 
> Homegate was brought up, but it was unclear whether homegate considered such work in our out of scope of its efforts.
> 
> At one level, this doesn't matter aside of where the document sits and whether homegate, should it exist, operates on this directly or via a pointer to the v6ops WG, and this is as much an "AD management issue" as anything else. However, if we see ourselves taking on any of these for IPv4, I worry that we will end up solving problems in silos if they are not in the same document and/or same group.
> 
> Thoughts?

the intention for the "not quite so basic IPv6 CE router requirements" (saving the Advanced term for when we really need it. ;-)) document is for it to be non-innovative, i.e. not do new work. in my mind that means we will have to fork off any new work needed to other working groups. with the requirements being made in this document. where the document lives isn't that important to me, as long as it has a home, but I hope we can discuss this issue again at the Paris homegate meeting.

note that the list above is 'unprocessed'. I intend to start a small activity to sort it (into e.g known territory, requires new work, lacks interest, punt to phase 3, etc) and I also expect some additional items to crop up too.

cheers,
Ole

---

From: Laurent Toutain <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:12:21 +0200

Hi Mark,

Do you think routing protocols adapted to Home Network are in the
scope of the BOF ? I already asked the question during last BOF and
the answer was not very positive.

We have modified routing protocols to allow routers autoconfiguration
(see An evaluation of the NAP protocol for IPv6 router
auto-configuration on
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2007/ipv6/) and to manage
multi-homing.

Laurent

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 19:25, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> anything else. However, if we see ourselves taking on any of these for IPv4,
> I worry that we will end up solving problems in silos if they are not in the
> same document and/or same group.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Mark
>
>

-- 
Laurent Toutain
Tel: +33 2 22 06 82 37