Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Tue, 24 October 2017 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B3A13B573 for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HKbeCK5nDtZp for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EAAB13B51A for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1508821628; x=1509426428; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=XkXto197IAcQk9j1Tw4yanTh9 BRkUt1+SI+yXM5UqK4=; b=LnjDmBe0vqhVzsJ7ALeoMgFemzrSt22BUJQdNtki9 j0d1h+dQG6zCSw+3XpX71hWiLqJS4CMfejVUMwEwi++SZgEkUQBZVcrld7PpzQ90 NLxbhxM//rvQVUt1ikH2zeJL0X8KUK2UsFHCGjWfPeueom0mq00327lW0G5VfX4L go=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=qt1WxCxZntwSLgoaUJbsl/48uOQ9XF7ed1mz/HZOuEUYbeWo9tOx+cu+8iK9 jc6c+srdIN1R8a1AZF/z4BEU8kcsgvsFeJORlhN7PEm9iX+LV/qlZ09yK iDyIhRbngltzzMSb6WqVhio0zREZMZtb0MNWYbgIyw4Yy1izUDMAnY=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:07:08 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:07:08 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005603929.msg for <>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:07:08 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-HashCash: 1:20:171024:md50005603929::1zyo03Lx0UuLfzh9:00008uh3
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:06:43 +0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 05:07:13 -0000

Hi James,

I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-(

So even if I’d only a couple of answers, I think it we are on the right track …

So, concentrating in homenet.

Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to do it, or whatever?

Maybe it is interesting, if the chairs agree, to include this question in the WG agenda for the next meeting?


-----Mensaje original-----
De: homenet <> en nombre de james woodyatt <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: lunes, 23 de octubre de 2017, 22:12
Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

    On Oct 23, 2017, at 00:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> wrote:
    Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, however I still mention it as:
    The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not
       providing transit to other external networks.  However, HNCP
       ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream
       routers.  Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user
    Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is:
    1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ?
    2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.?
    I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above is needed. Anyone else interested?
    I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with first-mile internet service provider stuff.
    --james woodyatt <>
    homenet mailing list

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.