Internet DRAFT - draft-geng-mif-homenet-mpvd-use-cases
draft-geng-mif-homenet-mpvd-use-cases
MIF L. Geng
Internet-Draft H. Deng
Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile
Expires: April 18, 2016 October 16, 2015
Use Cases for Multiple Provisioning Domain in Homenet
draft-geng-mif-homenet-mpvd-use-cases-00
Abstract
This document describes the use cases of multiple provisioning domain
(MPVD) in homenet. Although most residential networks nowadays are
connected to a single ISP and normally subscribed to standard
internet service, it is expected that much wider range of devices and
services will become common in home networks. Homenet defines such
home network topologies with increasing number of devices with the
assumption that it requires minimum configuration by residential
user. As described in the homenet architecture ([RFC7368]),
multihoming and multi-service residential network will be more common
in the near future. Nodes in such network may commonly have multiple
interfaces or subscribe to multiple services. Potential types of
PVD-aware nodes concerning interface and service specific
provisioning domains are introduced in this document. Based on this,
different MPVD configuration examples are given. These examples
illustrate how PVD may be implemented in home network. PVDs provide
independent provisioning domains for different interfaces and
services, which enables robust and flexible network configuration for
these networks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2016.
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Homenet with Multiple PvDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Examples of MPvD Configurations in Home Network . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Single CE Router Connected to Single ISP with interior
router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Two CE Routers Connected to two ISPs with Shared Subnets 6
4.3. One CE Routers Connected to two ISPs with Shared Subnets 6
5. PvD-aware node in homenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IPv4 compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Conveying PvD information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
It is believed that future residential network will more commonly be
multihomed, which potentially provides either resilience or more
flexible services. At the same time, more internal routing and
multiple subnets are expected to commonly exist in such networks.
For example, customer may want independent subnets for private and
guest usages. Homenet describes such future home network involving
multiple routers and subnets ([RFC7368]).
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
Multihoming and the increasing number of subnets bring challenges on
provisioning of the network. As stated in [RFC6418], such multihomed
scenarios with nodes attached to multiple upstream networks may
experience configuration conflicts, leading to a number of problems.
To deal with these problem, draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-10 provides a
framework which introduces Provisioning Domain (PvD), which
associates a certain interface and its related network configuration
information. Hence, corresponding network configuration can be used
when packets are delivered through a particular interface.
This document focuses on the MPvD use cases in residential network,
particularly the IPV6-based homenet. Based on the homenet topology,
use cases of MPvD in homenet are described for both singlehomed and
multihomed network configurations.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
The terminology and abbreviations used in this document are defined
in this section.
o ISP: Internet Service Provider. A traditional network operator
who provides internet access to customers.
3. Homenet with Multiple PvDs
In the most common multihoming scenarios, the home network has
multiple physical connections to the ISP networks. Section 3.2.2.2
and 3.2.2.3 in [RFC7368] give the topology examples of such homenet.
In the examples, homenet hosts are connected to a single or multiple
customer edge routers (CE router), the CE routers are then connected
to separate ISP networks. For the particular topology with a single
CE router given in Section 3.2.2.3 in [RFC7368], the CE router is a
mif node since it has two interfaces connected to individual service
provider routers. Given that the CE router is a PvD-aware node, it
may have two PvDs provided by ISPs respectively.
Apart from the multihoming resulted from physical connections , PvDs
in Homenet can also be used for service provisioning. For example, a
host may subscribe one ISP for internet service, whilst subscribe to
another ISP for Internet of Things (IoT) service given that the CE
router have access to both ISPs. On the other hand, the host user
may also subscribe to the same ISP for both services. In either
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
case, PvDs can be used for customized network configurations
purposes. This enables the service providers to provide independent
and flexible provisioning for different services. Meanwhile, IoT
service providers may also want to use independent PvDs to avoid the
configuration conflicts between each other as stated in RFC6418.
A typical example of a PvD in home network is the one associating
corresponding network configuration with an HNCP routers. These
includes both CE router and interior router in Homenet. As described
in ([RFC7368]), an CE router in homenet may have one or more external
interfaces with ISPs and internal interfaces with interior routers.
For external interfaces, the CE router can receive associated PvD
information from corresponding ISPs. For interior interfaces, the
interior router can receive PvD information from connected CE router
or other interior routers.
Hosts in homenet are expected to be multihomed as well. Hence, PvD
may also be used in such cases to associate different network
configurations. In this case, the PvD information is received from
the HNCP router a host is attached to, either a CE router or a
interior router.
4. Examples of MPvD Configurations in Home Network
This section gives some examples of MPvD configurations in home
network.
4.1. Single CE Router Connected to Single ISP with interior router
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
<----"Internet" PvD----------->
_____
+-------+ ( )
+--------+ | | ( ISP ) +------+
| PC +------+ +--------------------+ WWW |
+--------+ | HNCP | ( ) +------+
| CE | ( )
+--------+ |Router | ( ) +------+
| SETBOX +------+ +--------------------+ VOD |
+--------+ | | ( ) +------+
| | ( )
| <----"VOD" PvD--------------->
| | ( )
<------------------"VPN" PvD ------------------------->
+--------+ | | ( )
| +----+ | +--------+ | | ( ) +------+
| |VPN +---+ | | +--------------------+ VPN |
| +----+ | |Interior| | | ( ) +------+
| Host 3 | | HNCP +------+ | ( )
| +----+ | | Router | | | ( __) +------+
| |IoT +---+ | | +--------------------+ IoT |
| +----+ | +--------+ +-------+ (__ ) +------+
+--------+
<------------------"IoT" PvD-------------------------->
Figure 1
In this example, A homenet is connected with a single ISP as seen in
Figure 1. Four different services are provided to this home network
including Internet, VOD, VPN and IoT. There are 3 Hosts in this set-
up. PC and setbox use "Internet" and "VoD" PvDs respectively and
Host 3 uses both "VPN" and "IoT" PvD.
The four PVDs could be either implicit or explicit PvDs. Explicit
PvDs should be initially assigned to HNCP CE router by ISP. And then
forwarded to interior routers and host. Given that all PvDs are
explicit in the case above, the "Internet" PvD is forwarded to PC and
"VOD" PvD to SETBOX by the CE router, and the "VPN" and "IoT" PvDs
are forwarded to interior HNCP router and then Host 3. The PvD_ID
should be kept the same when the PvDs are forwarded. However, other
associated network configuration (i.e. delegated prefixes) should be
changed accordingly.
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
4.2. Two CE Routers Connected to two ISPs with Shared Subnets
To be added
4.3. One CE Routers Connected to two ISPs with Shared Subnets
To be added
5. PvD-aware node in homenet
As defined in MIF, "PvD-aware node is a a node that supports the
association of network configuration information into PvDs and the
use of these PvDs to serve requests for network connections". In
Homenet, the HNCP CE router, interior router and host are all PvD-
aware nodes.
The HNCP CE router PvD-related functionality is define as follows:
o Generates implicit PvDs for different uplink interfaces.
o Requests and receives all explicit PvDs provided by the connected
ISPs.
o Generates explicit PvDs for interior routers and hosts referring
to the ISP-provided PvDs and forwards them accordingly.
o Creates and stores the PvD mapping between the PvD applied itself
the the one forwarded to interior routers and hosts using the
assigned PvD_ID and prefix.
o Identify the prefix received from homenet nodes and performs PvD
selection based on PvD mapping.
The interior router PvD-related functionality is defined as follows:
o Generates implicit PvDs for different homenet internal interface.
o Requests and receives all explicit PvDs provided by connected
homenet routers.
o Generates explicit PvDs for interior routers and hosts referring
to the homenet-router-provided PvDs and forwards them accordingly.
o Creates and stores the PvD mapping between the PvD applied itself
the the one forwarded to interior routers and hosts using the
assigned PvD_ID and prefix.
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
o Identify the prefix received from homenet nodes and performs PvD
selection based on PvD mapping.
The host PvD-related functionality is defined as follows:
o Generates implicit PvDs for different interfaces between host and
homenet routers.
o Requests and receives all explicit PvDs provided by connected
homenet routers.
6. IPv4 compatibility
PvD in homenet can be either single-family or dual-stack. For
single-family PvD, the IPV4 and IPV6 configurations should be managed
in separate PvDs with different PvD identities. For Dual-stack PvDs,
IPV4 and IPV6 configurations can exist in the same PvD. In both
cases, there can either be only one IPV4 PvD for each interface or
multiple IPV4 PvDs with different default gateway addresses.
7. Conveying PvD information
At the time this document was written, the conveying of PvD
information was still under discussion in mif working group. Popular
choices include DNS, DHCP and Route Advertisement. For PvD
information provided from ISP to CE router and router to host, the
approaches for PvD information delivery defined by mif may be
directly used. For PvD information delivery within homenet between
HNCP-enabled routers, HNCP-based approach need to be defined. The
detail of how homenet could support the delivery of PvD information
between routers is subjected to further discussions and will be
addressed in a separate document.
8. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ted Lemon, Mark Townsley, Markus
Stenberg and Steven Barth for valuable discussions and contributions
to this document.
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
TBA
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet October 2015
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, DOI
10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC6418] Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", RFC 6418, DOI
10.17487/RFC6418, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6418>.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles", RFC
7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.
Authors' Addresses
Liang Geng
China Mobile
Email: gengliang@chinamobile.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile
Email: denghui@chinamobile.com
Geng & Deng Expires April 18, 2016 [Page 8]
