Homenet Working Group L. Geng
Internet-Draft H. Deng
Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile
Expires: January 4, 2016 July 3, 2015
Use Cases for Multiple Provisioning Domain in Homenet
draft-geng-homenet-mpvd-use-cases-01
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 January 4, 2016.
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 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
3.1. PvD associating an interface in homenet . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. PvD associating a service in homenet . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. PvD for hybrid purposes in home network . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Examples of MPvD Configurations in Home Network . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Homenet Connected to a Single ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Multihomed Homenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. PvD-aware node in homenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Conveying PvD information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 January 4, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 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.
o VSP: Virtual Service Provider. An service provider who typically
provides over-the-top services including but not limited to
Internet of Things services (IoT).
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.
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 2015
Apart from the multihoming resulted from physical connections to
different ISPs, the future residential network may also logically
connected to multiple Over-the-top service providers(i.e. IoT
service providers), who do not directly provide internet 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 VSPs 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 VSP may also use
PvDs for customized network configurations purposes. This enables
the VSPs to provide independent and flexible provisioning between on
its subscriber's network for different services. Meanwhile, VSPs may
also want to use independent PvDs to avoid the configuration
conflicts between each other as stated in RFC6418.
The following sections outline differenct types of PvD in homenet.
3.1. PvD associating an interface in homenet
One typical example of a PvD in home network is the one associating
an interface with network configuration. As described in
([RFC7368]), a multihomed CE router in homnet connects with multiple
ISPs. It may have several different uplink interfaces (i.e. PON and
LTE). ISP can use PvDs to associate its network configurations with
specific uplink interface the CE router provides to its subscriber.
PvD information can be delivered by ISP through the corresponding
uplink interface of the CE router.
Another scenario is when the interior routers and hosts in homenet
have multiple uplink interfaces(i.e. LAN, WIFI, Zigbee). Depending
on the actual network implementation, PvDs for these interfaces can
be either configured by ISPs or VSPs. Since these devices connect
with the internet through the CE router within homnnet, mechanism
needs to be defined for PvD information delivery within homenet.
3.2. PvD associating a service in homenet
This type of PvD is useful in homenet when a provisioning domain is
needed for a specific service that a homenet user subscribe to.
Unlike the PvD associating an interface in homenet, this PvD
associates the network configuration with a service. The service can
be provided by any ISP or VSP that is available to the user.
In homenet, ISPs and VSPs can use this PvD for service-specific
provisioning in CE routers, interior routers and hosts. Service
providers could decide the number of PvDs they offer depending on the
services a user subscribes to. This enables complete dependency
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 2015
between the provisioning of different services provided by either
same or different sources.
A good example of a device in homenet that may use such PvD is a IoT
box provided by VSP. 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 with the CE router or the host in some circumstances.
Since some services may need provisioning domain in multiple devices
in homenet(i.e. Both IoT service gateway and host need to be
provisioned), PvDs associated with the same service in different
devices should ideally be managed by a single provider. Hence,
necessary collaboration can be taken care of by the VSP/ISP.
3.3. PvD for hybrid purposes in home network
The coexistence of multiple interfaces and services is possible when
a device in homenet is both multihomed with more than one ISPs and
subscribed to multiple services. Assuming that a service provider
has access to the interface of the device on which its service is
provided, a provisioning domain associating both the service and
corresponding interface can be used for a simpler set-up. For
example, instead of separately maintaining a WIFI interface PvD and
an IoT service PvD, an VSP can merge the information of these to PvD
and only use a single PvD for hybrid provisioning. It is always
preferred that PvD for hybrid provisioning is used when possible,
since it offers better network configuration flexibility for service
provider and enables seamless coordination between interface and the
service runs on it.
4. Examples of MPvD Configurations in Home Network
This section gives some examples of MPvD configurations in home
network.
4.1. Homenet Connected to a Single ISP
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 2015
<----"Internet" PvD of ISP---->
_____
+--------+ +-------+ ( )
|Internet+---+ + +------( ISP )
+--------+ | | | ( )
<------"IoT1" PvD of VSP1-------------->
+--------+ | | | ( ) +------+
| IoT1 +---|--+ | ( )------+ VSP1 |
+--------+ | | | ( ) +------+
<------"IoT2" PvD of VSP2-------------->
+--------+ | | | ( ) +------+
| IoT2 +---+ + | ( )---+ VSP2 |
+--------+ | | ( ) +------+
<------------"IoT3" PvD of VSP3------------------>
+----+ +--------+ | HNCP | ( ) +------+
|IoT3+-+ + | | Home | ( ) | |
+----+ | |Interior| |Gateway| ( ) | |
|-+ HNCP +------+ | ( )------+ VSP3 |
+----+ | | Router | | | ( __) | |
|IoT4+-+ + | | | (___ ) | |
+----+ +--------+ +-------+ (__ ) +------+
<------------"IoT4" PvD of VSP3------------------>
Figure 1
A homenet home gateway (CE router) is singlehomed with a single ISP
as seen in Figure 1. In this scenario, basic internet service is
provided by this ISP, IoT services are provided by 3 different VSPs.
Multiple PvDs are created for the CE router for the purpose of
service provisioning. The home gateway, connected with multiple
service providers, receives basic internet PvD information from the
connected ISP, IoT1 PvD information from VSP1 and IoT2 PvD
information from VSP2.
Additionally, an HNCP-enabled interior router is connected to the
home gateway and provides another 2 IoT services from VSP3 to the
user. VSP3 may create 2 PvDs associating IoT3 and IoT4 respectively
for the interior router, subject to the user's subscription.
In this example, ISP provides basic internet service through a
homenet home gateway and VSPs provides multiple IoT services through
both the HNCP home gateway and the interior HNCP router. Since none
of the gateway devices are multihomed, all of the PvDs associate
corresponding network configuration with a specific service. The PvD
information is delivered by ISP and VSPs through the corresponding
singlehomed interface.
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 2015
4.2. Multihomed Homenet
<--------"Internet1" PvD of ISP1--------->
<-"LTE" PvD of ISP1---->
_____
+---------+ +-------+ ( )
|Internet1+------+ +-LTE--( ) +-----+
+---------+ | | ( ) | |
| | ( ISP1 )--+ |
<----------"IoT1" PvD of VSP--------------> | |
| | ( _) | |
+----+ +--------+ | | ( ____) | |
|IoT1+-+ + | | | | |
+----+ | |Interior| | HNCP | | |
|-+ HNCP +---+ Home | | VSP |
+----+ | | Router | |Gateway| | |
|IoT2+-+ + | | | _____ | |
+----+ +--------+ | | ( ) | |
| | __( ) | |
<----------"IoT2" PvD of VSP--------------> | |
| | ( ISP2 )--+ |
+---------+ | | ( __) | |
|Internet2+------+ +-PON-( _) +-----+
+---------+ +-------+ ( ____)
<-"PON" PvD of ISP2---->
<--------"Internet2" PvD of ISP2--------->
Figure 2
Figure 2 illustrates an example of multihomed HNCP home gateway. In
this example, two ISPs are connected with the HNCP home gateway and
both provide internet services. The interfaces used by the HNCP home
gateway for these 2 ISPs are LTE and PON, which are provisioned
within the LTE PvD of ISP1 and PON PvD of ISP2. Another 2 PvD for
individual internet service are also created by ISP1 and ISP2
respectively. In principle, it is preferred in this example that the
2 PvDs of the same ISP should be merged as one hybrid PvD, which
associates the complete set of network configuration with both the
internet service and the corresponding uplink interface.
The interior HNCP router in this example are similiar to the one in
the previous example, providing 2 IoT services provisioned separately
by VSP. However, it is worth mentioning that the IoT1 and IoT2 PvDs
information is not necessarily delivered from a fixed ISP because of
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 2015
the nature of multihomed gateway. It is upto the VSP to make the
decision according to the available network resources.
Although not shown in Figure 2, the HNCP home gateway may also
directly provide IoT service from VSP. Since VSP is normally homed
with multiple ISPs, the multihomed HNCP home gateway may receive PvD
information from different ISPs for the IoT service. PvD
configuration conflicts need to be avoided in this case.
5. PvD-aware node in homenet
PvD-aware node is the device where the provisioning domains and
associated network configuration are set up. In the examples given
in Section 4, the HNCP home gateways and Interior HNCP routers are
all PvD-aware nodes. The HNCP home gateway receives MPvD identity
and associated network configuration from the network and forward the
MPvD information belonging to interior routers. It is worth
mentioning that a PvD-aware node may also be a host in homenet,which
is not shown in the given examples. For instance, a mobile device
connected with the interior router may have MPvDs for it's Wifi and
cellular interfaces, or for multiple services it subscribed to.
As introduced in RFC7556, typical information a PvD-aware node
learned from network by a provisioning domain including source
address prefixes for use by the connected hosts within the PvD,IP
address(es) of the DNS server(s) and default gateway address. While
these information is maintained in the PvD-aware node, it needs to
assign prefixes to the connected hosts within homenet using homenet-
defined approaches.
6. Conveying PvD information
The PvD associated with an VSP service may be directly provided by
VSP using application layer approach, or provided by the the ISPs in
which the VSP is homed if there are collaboration between ISPs and
VSPs.
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 VSPs to the CE routers, the approaches for PvD
information delivery defined by mif may be directly used. For PvD
information delivery within homenet between HNCP-enabled routers and
hosts, HNCP-related approach need to be concerned. The detail of how
homenet could support the delivery of PvD information is subjected to
further discussions and will be addressed in a separate document.
Geng & Deng Expires January 4, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPvD in Homenet July 2015
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ted Lemon for valuable initial
discussions of this document.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
TBA
10. References
10.1. 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.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC6418] Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", RFC 6418,
November 2011.
[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 January 4, 2016 [Page 9]