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

james woodyatt <> Mon, 23 October 2017 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56877139976 for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yE81nDt1htT for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EE4F138AEE for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x7so17698538pfa.1 for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=42D74yhp3raVeK0B/PmAk0VPEe3gwaYlPWbHQbQWbJg=; b=vnWiGA8tCsoJMV/2LeD+SBU0au7N9pRs5ZDYptiYk1jkXBICkP0m9nzGq+gt/qEfYq 0Yl/DxYoTErn1wOBge2S7aLiUeui+dBqNYvnNOCED/mn+Fc08jjt8dinVB68eyCuiRj/ t0Egj4BJ7ndrx9CgwpEm81V0eC+oYLHl66LNqeeSlC7QdntKGTpP/TuIv+AH7L+ZA38b s7S0dwnEOkT0fRBDi2Q0ZvB7WOTOGwjvuCQIVjHpqQcvVpYQGwJHmfknN4S2kVBkQsGw 4vkOE1OsnSZa8SEUS9wrcpGSSSdBokI3htnpu4NAXkgJjOaDnbvgxiavqzgnGaUUWrQh TG2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=42D74yhp3raVeK0B/PmAk0VPEe3gwaYlPWbHQbQWbJg=; b=ueevGgZeMwyaCrHdXHtIonHMc0oyh4Hs8wDGRHHmnXZ7RcatwtgQCnpxT6t+Jlveuy 2LniZgLd3TyfwyorQmpRG/Yb2LNso88aLqL4hJbZhD+Pp2iMwSzGS5Cu8Fu06xxxuFlN 7s2/+ou7dG2dQhA7GuoOf8ZDJEBEkZI5Aq5AZpWVuXWlMQcTZMWcOr7XVJsUlvNzU0Oe kpAZmqT00F+ihqe7/PBB+d+LHQHHMClmI3Bh8uWUwzZ3TEU3nFEuQ/GXTgQq2ZhiJq0B fo5h6U4Ds4GgYkGaVPbTt91T7zvpRwSNYaYzyIcxtqWoZVSqZ7Dd2iwgJIfXOf6wDKob kAzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVHhZbp5A+OL2O20LFgVsB4vE9nZIR+d1g79QfytVMFSs92m+IW iawgPc2lihstFNFFj7Uzl/XW08bzcWk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T6o5wJvX7DmfwX4zQ3sqsvuE7e6EvBESrBltUY8fiBPuTc046NbTnOG+bvVKa/PWqHJwbyxw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f128mr14016457pfg.85.1508782351658; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::10e7:10:a439:5cfe:4e30:d361? ([2620:0:10e7:10:a439:5cfe:4e30:d361]) by with ESMTPSA id w9sm14481402pfk.16.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C82B1190-C372-413B-B7CF-74BDBE5F7FFC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:30 -0700
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
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: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:12:37 -0000

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
>   network.
> 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 < <>>