Stephane, John,
FUN is a new working group proposal, a variation of the HOMEGATE /
HOMENET theme that we discussed some time ago but this time looking at
it from a different angle. Roughly speaking, its about how to run IPv6
in home networks, including some possibly missing protocol pieces.
The proposal has been under private discussion during the spring, and is
now coming to a state where it can be brought for more public
discussion. I have asked for comments from a few directorates etc last
week, and was about to ask more publicly once I had the mailing list up
and running :-)
The draft charter is below. Comments very much appreciated. Subscription
to the list open.
FUture home Networks (FUN)
-------------------------
Current Status: Proposed
Last Edit: Friday, June 3rd, 2011
Chairs:
TBD
Internet Area Directors:
Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>
Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>
Routing Area Technical Advisor:
TBD
Security Area Technical Advisor:
TBD
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: fun@xxxxxxxx
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun
Description of Working Group:
This working group focuses on the evolving networking technology in
small networks such as those in homes. This evolution sets some
requirements on IETF protocols. An obvious trend for home networking
is the proliferation of networking technology in increasing number of
different devices, from home entertainment systems to appliances and
energy applications, just to name a few examples. This leads to a
higher number of networked devices in each network. However, some
more fundamental changes are occurring at the same time as well:
o First, the link layer networking technology is become more
heterogeneous, as networks are starting to employ, for instance,
both traditional Ethernet technology and link layers designed for
low-powered sensor networks.
o Networks are also moving from a "one size fits all" model to
dedicated segments for specific purposes. For instance, a common
feature in high-end home routers in the ability to support both
guest and private network segments. Similar needs for separation
may occur in other cases, such as separating building control from
the Internet access network. Typically, different subnets, routing
and firewalls are used between the different segments.
o Service providers are rolling out networks that support IPv6, and
home gateway support for IPv6 is starting to appear. But for home
networks, IPv6 is not just a new protocol, it also changes address
allocation principles and allows end-to-end communication to the
devices in the home.
o End-to-end communication is both an opportunity and a problem, as it
enables new applications but also exposes nodes in the internal
networks to unwanted traffic from the Internet. Firewalls are in
many cases needed to prevent exposure. However, this reduces the
usefulness of end-to-end connectivity, as the firewall policy model
is usually default deny, only allowing a small set of known
protocols. In addition, consumer equipment typically reacts slowly
if at all to changes in the typical Internet application, and it is
likely that traffic for a popular application is not recognized by
devices manufactured before that application was launched.
Future home networks need to provide the tools to handle these
situations in an easy manner. It is obvious that manual configuration
is rarely possible. For IPv4, NAT and private address based solutions
already provide limited solutions. The purpose of this working group
is to develop an architecture and necessary additional tools for IPv6,
to address the full scope of requirements:
o prefix configuration for routers
o managing routing (including turning it on by default)
o name resolution
o service discovery
o perimeter security
Specifically, the group should produce an architecture document that
outlines how to construct home networks involving multiple routers and
subnets. This document is expected to apply the IPv6 addressing
architecture, prefix delegation, global and ULA addresses, source
address selection rules and other existing components of the IPv6
architecture.
In addition, the group will apply existing protocols to handle the
five requirements above. For prefix configuration, DHCPv6 PD is an
obvious candidate solution, possibly supplemented by some small
enhancements, such as new options. For automatic routing, it is
expected that existing routing protocols can be used as is, however, a
new mechanism may be needed in order to turn a selected protocol on.
For name resolution and service discovery, extensions are needed to
mDNS and DNS-SD to enable them to work across subnets.
For perimeter security, the group shall document the concept of
"advanced security" as a further development of "simple security" from
RFC 6092. The main goal of this work is to enable a default allow
security policy. This may be accomplished, for instance, through
driving security policy from an up-to-date database in the Internet or
using simple security along with firewall control protocols such as
PCP.
It is expected that the working group defines a set of protocol
specifications to accomplish the five requirements from
above. However, it is NOT in the scope of the working group to define
entirely new routing protocols or address allocation protocols. As
noted additional options or other small extensions may be necessary to
use the existing protocols in these new configuration tasks. The
working group shall also not make any changes to IPv6 protocols or
addressing architecture. Prefix configuration, routing, and security
related work shall not cause any changes that are visible to hosts.
There may be host visible changes in the work on naming and discovery
protocols, however. In its design, the working group shall also
consider security aspects and the impact on manageability.
The working group will liaise with the relevant IETF working groups
and other standards bodies. In particular, the group should work
closely with the V6OPS working group, review any use or extension of
DHCP with the DHC working group, and get feedback on DNS issues from
the DNSEXT and DNSOP working groups. If it turns out that additional
options are needed for a routing protocol, they will be developed in
the appropriate Routing Area working group, with the FUN working group
providing the architecture and requirements for such enhancements.
Milestones:
Oct 2011 First WG draft on the architecture
Dec 2011 First WG draft on prefix configuration
Dec 2011 First WG draft on routing
Jan 2011 First WG draft on name resolution
Feb 2011 First WG draft on service discovery
Feb 2011 First WG draft on perimeter security
Feb 2012 Submission of the architecture draft to the IESG as
Informational RFC
Feb 2012 Start of routing related work in the relevant routing area
working group, if needed
Mar 2012 Submission of the prefix configuration draft to the IESG as
Standards Track RFC
Apr 2012 Submission of the routing draft to the IESG as Informational RFC
Jun 2012 Submission of the name resolution draft to the IESG as
Standards Track RFC
Jun 2012 Submission of the service discovery draft to the IESG as
Standards Track RFC
Aug 2012 Submission of the perimeter security draft to the IESG as
Informational RFC
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf