Internet DRAFT - draft-geng-homenet-mpvd-use-cases

draft-geng-homenet-mpvd-use-cases







Homenet                                                          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-homenet-mpvd-use-cases-02

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]