Requirements for Homenet Naming Architecture

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-11-15
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                           T. Lemon
Internet-Draft                                             Nominum, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                         November 16, 2016
Expires: May 20, 2017

              Requirements for Homenet Naming Architecture


   This document describes options for how naming could be done in a
   homenet, and lists requirements for each solution.

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

   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 May 20, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   ( 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.

Lemon                     Expires May 20, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Homenet DNS Reqs               November 2016

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

1.  Introduction

   The homenet working group is trying to develop a suite of
   specifications that, when implemented together, will produce home
   routers that are capable of supporting fully-featured end-to-end
   routed internet service.  Of course, fully-featured could mean a lot
   of things, and at present the homenet naming architecture is stalled
   over the question of what it means.

   There are a few things it could mean.  At the most basic level, it
   could mean simply that devices that publish services using mDNS are
   reachable from anywhere on the home network using dnssd hybrid proxy,
   that caching name service [RFC1035] or DNS Proxy service is provided
   for off-network queries, and that no other naming is available on the
   homenet.  This is fairly easy to implement, and likely would address
   all use cases addressed by existing home routers, but would support
   service discovery across routers, which current home routers do not
   support.  We'll call this option 1.

   A second option would be to provide fully-featured name service,
   using DNS updates with mDNS as a backup.  This differs from option 1
   in that there would have to be one or more stateful DNS authoritative
   servers on the homenet.  It would require additional bookkeeping work
   on the part of the infrastructure to delete stale names.  It would
   require some form of quorum detection and election for cases where
   the end user decommissions devices without telling the network, and
   adds devices without telling the network.  In order to actually add
   value, this option requires that it be possible for the homenet to
   acquire a global DNS delegation somehow.

   A third option would be to provide the second option with DNSSEC,
   including a secure delegation from the root.

   In order to make anything other than option 1 work, some interaction
   with the end user would be required.  In order to support DNSSEC,
   some sort of secure pairing process would be necessary.  Supporting
   either of these options requires either that we pass the buck on how
   to do this to router vendors and hope for the best, or that we
   specify some sort of management API that allows for these functions
   to be done in a standards-compliant way, so apps can be written for

Lemon                     Expires May 20, 2017                  [Page 2]
Show full document text