Re: [v6ops] [fun] status of the homenet effort

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

v6ops folks:

This may be of interest to those that have been involved in the CPE Router activity particularly and those interested generally in the issues of residential/SOHO equipment. It intersects with v6ops in the sense of including operational matters, but tends to be more in the customer of a broadband ISP than the ISP.

The list appears to be [e-mail] for the moment, but it may change to homenet. They tell me that someone will consolidate the lists if you're on them today.

On Jun 29, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:

> 
> Fred, would you mind carrying this over to v6ops appropriately as a heads up and perhaps what it suggests in terms of current work in v6ops?
> 
> Jari, when can we nail down the right list name? If that is imminent, perhaps Fred should wait until he can end the message with the right pointer.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>
>> Date: June 29, 2011 11:46:03 AM GMT+02:00
>> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Apologies for double-posting if there are folks that are subscribed to [e-mail] and [e-mail]. I'm hoping soon that someone will finally create [e-mail] and consolidate the membership accordingly.
>> 
>> In the charter proposal below, I think you will see a lot of similarity with the consensus we achieved on the homegate list last year. Jari has taken that, feedback from the IESG, IAB, members of the IP-Directorate, v6ops chairs, etc. and shaped it towards something more focused on the Internet (and Routing) area, as well as IPv6. I believe he and Ralph both have a great deal of confidence that this is something that is very important to the industry, and that the IETF has a critical role to play. 
>> 
>> So, make no mistake, whether we end up as a WG or a BoF between now and Quebec, "we're back" - please send comments, and make your travel or remote-attendance plans accordingly if you want to participate. 
>> 
>> Jari has asked me to co-chair the session in Quebec. As such, I'd like to take requests for presentation time now. Jari and I will likely begin the session with a scoping overview, as well as a first cut at an architecture framework, but there should be some time for a few other items. When submitting your request, please identify which of the 5 areas below you think your work applies to as well as the internet-draft, of course. 
>> 
>> Thanks, and see you on the list and in Quebec.
>> 
>> - Mark
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 29, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> 
>>> I wanted to provide an update of the situation with this working group proposal.
>>> 
>>> HOMENET is a new working group proposal, a variation of the HOMEGATE/HOMENET theme that we discussed last year, but this time looking at it from a different angle. The old effort was mostly focused about what home gateways should do: forwarding, transport, and DNS proxying issues. The new effort is about home networks themselves, in particular what kind of network architecture and configuration is necessary to support IPv6-based home networks. We view IPv4-based home networks as "done" at this time (or perhaps as "cannot be changed anyway").
>>> 
>>> I have been discussing this effort in the background for the last couple of month with Mark Townsley and others, and more publicly since early June. The proposal has been brought to the IESG, IAB and some directorates for discussion, and we've been going back and forth whether this is ready to become a working group or needs to be run as a BOF in Quebec City. The current plan is that the working group proposal goes to IETF-wide review this week, and if the feedback from the community, IAB, and the IESG is positive, we will create the working group just in time for the IETF. Otherwise, the slot reserved in the agenda for the meeting will be used to run the proposal as a BOF.
>>> 
>>> In any case, I would like to solicit discussion on this topic, and perhaps some early drafts as well. Please comment on the charter at least.
>>> 
>>> Note that the new proposal was called FUN at the time that we created the list. It has now been renamed back to HOMENET to be more descriptive. The list will be renamed soon as well (current subscribers will stay).
>>> 
>>> This is the most recent version of the charter we should discuss:
>>> 
>>> Home Networks (homenet)
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Current Status: Proposed
>>> Last Edit: Wednesday, June 29th, 2011
>>> 
>>> Chairs:
>>> TBD
>>> 
>>> Internet Area Directors:
>>> Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
>>> Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> Internet Area Advisor:
>>> Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> Routing Area Technical Advisor:
>>> TBD
>>> 
>>> Security Area Technical Advisor:
>>> TBD
>>> 
>>> Mailing Lists:
>>> General Discussion: [e-mail]
>>> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
>>> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun
>>> 
>>> Description of Working Group:
>>> 
>>> This working group focuses on the evolving networking technology
>>> within and among relatively small “residential home” networks. For
>>> example, an obvious trend in home networking is the proliferation of
>>> networking technology in an increasingly broad range and number of
>>> devices. This evolution in scale and diversity sets some requirements
>>> on IETF protocols. Some of the relevant trends include:
>>> 
>>> o Multiple segments: While less complex L3-toplogies involving as few
>>> subnets as possible are preferred in home networks for a variety of
>>> reasons including simpler management and service discovery, the
>>> introduction of more than one subnet into a home network is enough
>>> to add complexity that needs to be addressed, and multiple
>>> dedicated segments are necessary for some cases. For instance, a
>>> common feature in modern home routers in the ability to support
>>> both guest and private network segments. Also, link layer
>>> networking technology is poised to become more heterogeneous, as
>>> networks begin to employ both traditional Ethernet technology and
>>> link layers designed for low-powered sensor networks. Finally,
>>> similar needs for segmentation may occur in other cases, such as
>>> separating building control or corporate extensions from the
>>> Internet access network. Different segments may be associated with
>>> subnets that have different routing and security policies.
>>> 
>>> o Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is
>>> increasingly available in home gateway devices. While IPv6 resembles
>>> IPv4 in many ways, it changes address allocation principles and allows
>>> direct IP addressability and routing to devices in the home from the
>>> Internet. This is a promising area in IPv6 that has proved challenging
>>> in IPv4 with the proliferation of NAT.
>>> 
>>> o End-to-end communication is both an opportunity and a concern as it
>>> enables new applications but also exposes nodes in the internal
>>> networks to receipt of unwanted traffic from the Internet. Firewalls
>>> that restrict incoming connections may be used to prevent exposure,
>>> however, this reduces the efficacy of end-to-end connectivity that
>>> IPv6 has the potential to restore.
>>> 
>>> Home networks need to provide the tools to handle these situations in
>>> a manner accessible to all users of home networks. Manual
>>> configuration is rarely, if at all, possible. The purpose of this
>>> working group is to focus on this evolution, in particular as it
>>> addresses the introduction of IPv6, by developing an architecture
>>> addressing this full scope of requirements:
>>> 
>>> o prefix configuration for routers
>>> o managing routing
>>> o name resolution
>>> o service discovery
>>> o network security
>>> 
>>> The task of the group is to produce an architecture document that
>>> outlines how to construct home networks involving multiple routers and
>>> subnets. This document is expected to apply the IPv6 addressing
>>> architecture, prefix delegation, global and ULA addresses, source
>>> address selection rules and other existing components of the IPv6
>>> architecture. The architecture document should drive what protocols
>>> changes, if any, are necessary. Specific protocol work described below
>>> is expected to be within the scope of the working group one the
>>> architecture work is complete. However, the group is required to
>>> review its charter and milestones with the IESG and IETF community
>>> before submitting documents that make protocol changes. It is expected
>>> that the group has to discuss some of the below solutions, however, in
>>> order to complete the architecture work.
>>> 
>>> The group will apply existing protocols to handle the five
>>> requirements above. For prefix configuration, existing protocols are
>>> likely sufficient, and at worst may need some small enhancements, such
>>> as new options. For automatic routing, it is expected that existing
>>> routing protocols can be used as is, however, a new mechanism may be
>>> needed in order to turn a selected protocol on by default. For name
>>> resolution and service discovery, extensions to existing
>>> multicast-based name resolution protocols are needed to enable them to
>>> work across subnets.
>>> 
>>> For network security, the group shall document the concept of
>>> "advanced security" as a further development of "simple security" from
>>> RFC 6092. The main goal of this work is to enable a security policy
>>> that adapts to IPv6 threats as they emerge, taking into account not
>>> only traffic from the Internet at large, but within and leaving the
>>> home network itself.
>>> 
>>> It is expected that the working group will define a set of protocol
>>> specifications to accomplish the five requirements from
>>> above. However, it is not in the scope of the working group to define
>>> entirely new routing protocols or address allocation protocols. As
>>> noted, additional options or other small extensions may be necessary
>>> to use the existing protocols in these new configuration tasks. The
>>> working group shall also not make any changes to IPv6 protocols or
>>> addressing architecture. Prefix configuration, routing, and security
>>> related work shall not cause any changes that are not backwards
>>> compatible to existing IPv6 hosts. There may be host visible changes
>>> in the work on naming and discovery protocols, however. In its design,
>>> the working group shall also consider security aspects and the impact
>>> on manageability. The main focus of the working group is home
>>> networks, but the group's results may also find applications in other
>>> small networks.
>>> 
>>> The working group will liaise with the relevant IETF working
>>> groups. In particular, the group should work closely with the V6OPS
>>> working group, review any use or extension of DHCP with the DHC
>>> working group, and work with additional DNS requirements with the
>>> DNSEXT and DNSOP working groups. If it turns out that additional
>>> options are needed for a routing protocol, they will be developed in
>>> the appropriate Routing Area working group, with the HOMENET working
>>> group providing the architecture and requirements for such
>>> enhancements. The working group will also liase with external
>>> standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative
>>> dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies.
>>> It is expected that in the architecture definition stage liaising
>>> with the Broadband Forum, DLNA, and UPnP Forum is necessary.
>>> 
>>> Milestones:
>>> 
>>> Jul 2011 Formation of the working group
>>> Sep 2011 First WG draft on the architecture
>>> Dec 2011 Submission of the architecture draft to the IESG as Informational RFC
>>> Dec 2011 Charter re-evaluation based on the architecture work
>>> Dec 2011 First WG draft on prefix configuration
>>> Dec 2011 First WG draft on routing
>>> Jan 2012 First WG draft on name resolution
>>> Feb 2012 First WG draft on service discovery
>>> Feb 2012 First WG draft on perimeter security
>>> Feb 2012 Start of routing related work in the relevant routing area working group, if needed
>>> Mar 2012 Submission of the prefix configuration draft to the IESG as Standards Track RFC
>>> Apr 2012 Submission of the routing draft to the IESG as Informational RFC
>>> Sep 2012 Submission of the name resolution draft to the IESG as Standards Track RFC
>>> Nov 2012 Submission of the service discovery draft to the IESG as Standards Track RFC
>>> Dec 2012 Submission of the perimeter security draft to the IESG as Informational RFC
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fun mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
>> 
>