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]