Homenet Working Group                                            L. Geng
Internet-Draft                                                   H. Deng
Intended status: Standards Track                            China Mobile
Expires: September 8, 2015                                 March 7, 2015


         Use Cases for Multiple Provisioning Domain in Homenet
                  draft-geng-homenet-mpvd-use-cases-00

Abstract

   This document describes the use cases of multiple provisioning domain
   (MPVD) in homenet.  As homenet makes multihoming and multi-subnet a
   norm in future residential networks, nodes with multiple interface or
   conneted to multiple services may commonly exist in homenet.  MPVD
   may provide independent provisioning domains for different interfaces
   and services, which enables robust and flexible network configuration
   for such multi-interface/service nodes.

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 September 8, 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



Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


   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
     3.1.  PvD-aware Node with multiple interfaces . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  PvD-aware Node with multiple services . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Hybrid PvD-aware Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Examples of MPvD Configurations in Home Network . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Homenet Connected to a Single ISP . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Multihomed Homenet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Conveying PvD information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   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 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]).

   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 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 residential network.



Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


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.

   o  OSP: Over-the-top Service Provider.  An organization who provides
      over-the-top services including but not limited to Internet of
      Things.

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 a single PvD as it is connected to only one ISP and an
   additional PvD if connected to both.

   Apart from the multihoming resulted from physical connections to
   different ISPs, the future residential network may also logically
   connected to multiple service providers(i.e.  Over-the-top service
   providers), who do not directly provide access service to customers.
   For example, one customer may subscribe to a traditional service ISP
   for basic internet service, whilst subscribe to other providers for
   Internet of Things service.  The latter are likely to be OSPs as
   defined in Section 2 of this document, who are not bounded to any of
   the ISPs providing basic access service for the residential network.
   In this case, a particular OSP providing multiple services may use
   multiple PvDs for network configurations purposes.  This enables
   independent and flexible provisioning between different services
   provided to customers.  Meanwhile, different OSPs may also want to
   use independent PvDs to avoid the configuration conflicts issues
   stated in RFC6418.




Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


   The following sections outline the possible types of PvD-awared nodes
   in homenet.

3.1.  PvD-aware Node with multiple interfaces

   One example of a PvD-aware node with multiple interfaces may be a
   multihomed CE router connected to multiple ISPs.  Hence, it consists
   of multiple interfaces and each ISP may deliver PvD information
   through its own interface.  Then the CE router associates network
   configuration of one particular ISP with the corresponding PvD.

3.2.  PvD-aware Node with multiple services

   A PvD-aware node with multiple services may be a device subscribing
   to multiple services provided by ISPs and OSPs.  However, it does not
   necessarily have multiple interfaces.  The characteristic of
   independent services provided to a single device make it very similar
   to a node connected to multiple interfaces, given that each service
   can be seen as an independent interface.  OSPs may deliver PvD
   information to the devices according to specific services that a
   customer subscribes.

   A good example of such node is a box provided by OSP.  This box may
   be connected to a CE router as an interior router as demonstrated in
   section 3.2.2.1 of [RFC7368], or integrated in the CE router in some
   circumstances.  It may also be a general host in homenet, either
   connected directly to a CE router or an interior router.

3.3.  Hybrid PvD-aware Node

   The coexistence of multiple interfaces and services is possible when
   a CE router is both multihomed with more than one ISPs and accessible
   by the OSPs for service-specific network configurations.  In this
   case, the CE router acts as a Hybrid PvD-aware node since it may
   receive PvD information associated to interfaces and services from
   individual sources respectively.  Given that such PvDs are managed by
   ISPs and OSPs separately, it is suggested that PvDs from different
   sources should work independently to provide full flexibility.
   However, certain arrangement could be made between ISPs and OSPs for
   the purpose of delivering the best quality of services (i.e.
   configuration of a default PvD from a particular ISP for a certain
   OSP service).

   Hybrid node may also be a host in homenet, which intrinsically has
   multiple interfaces and have access to multiple services.  Some
   examples include a mobile device with Wifi, Bluetooth and cellular
   connections, which at the same time subscribes to multiple services
   from OSP(s).  This is quite similar to the example given in



Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


   Section 4.1 of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-10, with an expansion of
   introducing OSPs for the conveying of service-specific PvDs.

4.  Examples of MPvD Configurations in Home Network

   This section gives some examples of MPvD configurations in home
   network according to the types of PvD-aware nodes defined in
   Section 3

4.1.  Homenet Connected to a Single ISP

                       <----"Internet" PvD of ISP---->
                                                _____
               +--------+      +-------+       (     )
               |Internet+------+       +------(  ISP  )
               +--------+      |       |   (           )
                        <------"IoT1" PvD of OSP1--------->
               +--------+      |       |  (              )  +------+
               |  IoT1  +------+       |  (          )------+ OSP1 |
               +--------+      |       |     (         )    +------+
                        <------"IoT2" PvD of OSP2--------->
               +--------+      |       |  (              )  +------+
               |  IoT2  +------+       |  (             )---+ OSP2 |
               +--------+      |       |  (               ) +------+
              <------------"IoT3" PvD of OSP3------------->
      +----+   +--------+      | HNCP  | (             )    +------+
      |IoT3+---+        |      | Home  |  (           )     |      |
      +----+   |Interior|      |Gateway|   (          )     |      |
               |  HNCP  +------+       |    (        )------+ OSP3 |
      +----+   | Router |      |       |   (         __)    |      |
      |IoT4+---+        |      |       |    (___    )       |      |
      +----+   +--------+      +-------+       (__ )        +------+

              <------------"IoT4" PvD of OSP3------------->


                                 Figure 1

   A homnet home gateway (CE router) is singlehomed with only one ISP as
   seen in Figure 1.  In this scenario, basic internet service is
   provided by a single ISP, IoT services are provided by 3 different
   OSPs.  Multiple PvDs are created in the homenet for the purpose of
   service provisioning.  The home gateway, connected with multiple
   service providers, may receive basic internet PvD information from
   the connected ISP, IoT1 PvD information from OSP1 and IoT2 PvD
   information from OSP2.  An HNCP-enabled interior router is connected
   to the home gateway, acting as a service box for OSP 3.  Given that




Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


   the customer subscribes to multiple services provided by OSP 3,
   multiple PvDs may be created for the interior HNCP router.

4.2.  Multihomed Homenet

                                    <-"Internet" PvD of ISP1->
                                                _____
               +--------+      +-------+       (     )
               |Internet+------+       +------(       )    +-----+
               +--------+      |       |   (           )   |     |
                               |       |  (    ISP1     )--+     |
               <----------"IoT1" PvD of OSP------------->  |     |
                               |       |    (       _)     |     |
         +----+   +--------+   |       |     ( ____)       |     |
         |IoT1+---+        |   |       |                   |     |
         +----+   |Interior|   | HNCP  |                   |     |
                  |  HNCP  +---+ Home  |                   | OSP |
         +----+   | Router |   |Gateway|                   |     |
         |IoT2+---+        |   |       |                   |     |
         +----+   +--------+   |       |       (     )     |     |
                               |       |    __(       )    |     |
               <----------"IoT2" PvD of OSP------------->  |     |
                               |       |  (    ISP2     )--+     |
               +--------+      |       |   (          __)  |     |
               |Internet+------+       +----(       _)     +-----+
               +--------+      +-------+     ( ____)

                                    <-"Internet" PvD of ISP2->



                                 Figure 2

   Figure 2 illustrates an example of multihomed homenet with multiple
   PvDs.  Two ISPs are connected with the HNCP home gateway.  In this
   example, the home gateway is a Hybrid PvD-aware node since it creates
   PvDs for both ISP interfaces and OSP services.  Similarly to the
   previous example, an interior HNCP router is connected to the home
   gateway and receives PvD information from the OSP.

5.  Conveying PvD information

   The PvD associated with a OSP service may be provided by the the ISPs
   in which the OSP is homed, or directly provided by OSP using
   application layer approach.  Since OSP is normally homed with
   multiple ISPs, a PvD-aware node in multihomed homenet may receive PvD
   information from different ISP interfaces for a certain OSP service.
   It is subjected to the OSP to decide whether to provide multiple ISP-



Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


   specific PvD for each service.  Given that an ISP-specific PvD is
   provided, the association between the PvD and the targeted ISP
   interface need to be taken care of to avoid potential link failure.

   At the time this document was written, the conveying of PvD
   information was still under discussion in mif working group.  Popular
   choices include DHCP and Route Advertisement.  For PvD information
   provided from ISPs and OSPs to home gateways and from the home
   gateways to homenet hosts, the approaches for PvD information
   delivery defined by mif may be directly used.

   For PvD information delivery within homenet between HNCP-enabled
   routers, HNCP may be used.  A PvD option TLV can be created for the
   encapsulation of the HNCP-defined TLVs and PvD Identity to associate
   the corresponding Pvd and network configurations.  The detail of how
   HNCP could support this is subjected to further discussions and may
   be addressed in this document in future updates.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Ted Lemon for valuable initial
   discussions of this document.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   TBA

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6418]  Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
              Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", RFC 6418,
              November 2011.





Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               MPvD in Homenet                  March 2015


   [RFC7368]  Chown, T., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J. Weil,
              "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles", RFC 7368,
              October 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Liang Geng
   China Mobile

   Email: gengliang@chinamobile.com


   Hui Deng
   China Mobile

   Email: denghui@chinamobile.com



































Geng & Deng             Expires September 8, 2015               [Page 8]