[homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Mon, 23 October 2017 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1469a3b3c0=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6B113ED59 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=jordi.palet@consulintel.es header.d=consulintel.es
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2YGDlVodgtVT for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [217.126.185.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A26EB13ED55 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1508744959; x=1509349759; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=6ACjmreeeNU1HzClsDzBzc6C033SXLr4IxOWcdtU648=; b=rGmwcKuovIGD/ vL9DvTJ1xvmllH0f9UcsQVals8XLceyaHGN3BUVpNzQ8kfK+93ntCg3LoM5EHimg PHUJ5j41gbxwkIIoxcrVQjlYWmWbgfZD9IFtGYVf7rwgyCyTJs/s+IS+AqOelveh m15ZcCRMuVd6iZ+cc0N2S09EvFi3J0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=obUHXcIJYbjjBbWb9We4QWlhjBvb2imabVNBYDnxzmOTB4UdZen4bT33p0Ci atuItK/Y9bzEY8Fs3suPVSEphvIHdHfBN08Q/sD/2avjo7h3Z0I5Q0yUm JyLF1hEl2CFQQv/zGgTQYaXVoB9IG1R9oF2RsQBzarDhHwBy+XVxdk=;
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:49:18 +0200
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:49:17 +0200
Received: from [193.0.29.122] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005603200.msg for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:49:16 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:171023:md50005603200::kFjZbhnmaDXCykkI:00003aY9
X-Return-Path: prvs=1469a3b3c0=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: homenet@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:48:57 +0400
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <homenet@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <80D10C70-9411-48EE-8189-87E9401D7F22@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/ortB1K7g6uSH6TN6vQx-XjarwbE>
Subject: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:49:23 -0000

Hi all,

Some of you probably are aware of an attempt to update RFC7084 to a –bis version.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/

In this work, it was suggested to me to include HNCP support, so I added this LAN requirement:

L-16:  The IPv6 CE router SHOULD provide HNCP (Home Networking
          Control Protocol) services, as specified in [RFC7788].

However, it seems that the latest decision of v6ops, is “don’t touch RFC7084” and instead make a separate document for the IPv6 transition requirements for IPv6 CE routers, which I updated a few days ago:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/

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?

Regards,
Jordi
 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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.