RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> First and foremost it is a "choice" we should permit.  I personally
> think bridges were a bad idea for networks back in the late 80's, and
I
> don't believe extended LANs are acceptable, being inherently evil
> > Another question is whether v6ops should pick this up. Maybe
> > zerouter (if that is going to be a WG) is a better place and
> > we need to make sure they cover IPv6, unmanaged networks and
> > SOHOs too.
> 
> If that logic is true then the entire spec should move to zeroconf.  I
> think that is not a good idea.

Jim,

There is no question that there may be a technical interest in having
multiple subnets in a home network. However, there is also no question
that we cannot provide "unmanaged multi-subnet networks" with today's
technology. This is pretty much what settled the issue in the discussion
group: multi-subnet networks, today, are managed. The UPNP architecture
committee came pretty much to the same conclusion: structured networks
in the home may be desirable, but are not practical today; bridges
provide a reasonable alternative.

Not that I like this state of affairs. In fact, Dave Thaler and I
submitted a draft to the IPv6 WG that addresses the issue
(draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt). I believe we need something
like that in practice, as we are finding practical deployment of
"cascaded NATs" in some home networks today, and that really breaks a
number of applications.

But, well, this was the group's consensus.

-- Christian Huitema