Subject: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:48:57 +0400

Hi all,

Some of you probably are aware of an attempt to update RFC7084 to a –bis version.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/

In this work, it was suggested to me to include HNCP support, so I added this LAN requirement:

L-16:  The IPv6 CE router SHOULD provide HNCP (Home Networking
          Control Protocol) services, as specified in [RFC7788].

However, it seems that the latest decision of v6ops, is “don’t touch RFC7084” and instead make a separate document for the IPv6 transition requirements for IPv6 CE routers, which I updated a few days ago:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/

Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, however I still mention it as:

The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not
   providing transit to other external networks.  However, HNCP
   ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream
   routers.  Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user
   network.

Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is:

1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ?
2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.?

I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above is needed. Anyone else interested?

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:12:30 -0700

> I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above is needed. Anyone else interested?

I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with first-mile internet service provider stuff.

--james woodyatt <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>

---

From: Timothy Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:34:02 -0400

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:12 PM, james woodyatt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the
> support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an
> integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.?
>
> I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET
> protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for
> first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say
> about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the
> edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET
> optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended
> for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing
> with first-mile internet service provider stuff.
>

It would also be my preference to have this separate from 7084.

>
>
> --james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>

-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:06:43 +0400

Hi James,

I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-(

So even if I’d only a couple of answers, I think it we are on the right track …

So, concentrating in homenet.

Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to do it, or whatever?

Maybe it is interesting, if the chairs agree, to include this question in the WG agenda for the next meeting?

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:31:38 +0000

As chair...
I think it would be useful for homenet to discuss how to propagate its protocols into general purpose home network routers (that people may use at the edge or interior) and also what may or may not be good to include in requirements specifically targeting routers at the customer's edge (CE). 

Jordi: if you would like to bravely volunteer to help guide this discussion by being the person at the presenter microphone, that would be great. We could base discussion on the 7084-bis draft so you don't need to have another draft; but maybe some slides focused on the specific homenet questions. 

If others in homenet think having this discussion is a bad idea please let me/us know. 
Barbara

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 1:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> 
>    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_homenet&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_bR9FvzwQbxh-O6P0rZaAVc0qP9N51NHDxBJbsA_U3g&s=WZA2wxLl7avD8GFCF7eXUzLwkfVvFzOxKZFGPXPtYDE&e= 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.consulintel.es&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_bR9FvzwQbxh-O6P0rZaAVc0qP9N51NHDxBJbsA_U3g&s=HKL3FbaYGYEKqIpNRC_7FRP4YfGsmyViXh2wV5zCEw8&e= 
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_homenet&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=_bR9FvzwQbxh-O6P0rZaAVc0qP9N51NHDxBJbsA_U3g&s=WZA2wxLl7avD8GFCF7eXUzLwkfVvFzOxKZFGPXPtYDE&e=

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:47:59 +0400

Yes, of course, I’m happy to run that show.

I’m not really sure if this requires more than just a couple of slides, just to launch the discussion and gather opinion, but I will work on it, and of course, happy to heard what others believe I should include.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: homenet <[email-masked]> en nombre de "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 24 de octubre de 2017, 17:33
Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
CC: HOMENET <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

    As chair...

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:00:34 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:12:30AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of
> HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is
> mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I
> think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate
> behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the
> better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to
> write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home
> networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with
> first-mile internet service provider stuff.

I find the model of "there is a CPE, and behind that CPE, I connect
another router to get homenet functionality" a bit unsatisfactory.

Is that what you're saying how home Internet connections should
look like?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:44:04 -0400

> I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-(

Where is the document being revised?

RFC7084 turns out to be a document which is both requirements on CE routers,
but also implicitely requirements on ISPs to provide things to compliant CE
routers.

I would like to have either both explicitely in an RFC7084bis, or have two
documents.

I'd sure like to get some of our (HOMENET) DNS forward/reverse requirements into the
RFC7084bis-ISP-requirements.

    > Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific
    > document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to
    > do it, or whatever?

I'm just not parsing this question, btw.

    >     1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ?  2) Do
    > you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the

    > above is needed. Anyone else interested?

I think that we need some additional text in 7084bis that permits a
7084bis-only device to not screw up a HOMENET network.  I don't have specific
examples at the moment, but I recall we had various discussions in the past
about how things might work or fail to work.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:56:43 +0400

Hi Michael,

Let me try to explain it …, just for clarity, because that belongs to v6ops.

I started to work in an update of the original RFC7084 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/), in order to include support for the newer transition mechanism. In the last Chicago meeting, it was adopted as a WG item.

Then I got the suggestion to include also HNCP support, and I did, and worked out a couple of versions of that document.

However, in Prague, there was a push-back, and the WG basically decided that I should not continue that way, and instead I should have a new document “only” for the transition mechanism and not include explicit support for HNCP and run that thru homenet.

So, I worked out https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/.

I personally believe it is a missing opportunity to get the “default” IPv6 CPE that is typically provided by the ISP having HNCP support.

So, what I’m suggesting to Homenet is to have an explicit document for ISPs that still want to have RFC7084+transition+HNCP, to be able to reference in the RFQs to those 3 documents.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:49:57 -0700

On 10/24/2017 06:31 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
 >
> [...] and also what may or may not be good to include in requirements specifically targeting routers at the customer's edge (CE).

I think it's a waste of time for HOMENET to propose requirements for 
routers in service provider networks, event those at the edge that 
connects to subscribers. Those requirements will be neither welcome nor 
observed by the industry.

If the service provider industry wants to provide input on requirements 
for HOMENET routers in the interior of residential networks, then I 
think we should consider them judiciously on balance with input from 
application and home networking device developers.

--james

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:53:11 -0400

james woodyatt <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >>
    >> [...] and also what may or may not be good to include in requirements
    >> specifically targeting routers at the customer's edge (CE).

    > observed by the industry.

I think it's appropriate for HOMENET to review and comment on a document in
v6ops that doing that.  Do you agree?

I'd like a 7084bis document to focus less on requirements for the CE
*router*, and more on what shapes of bits we need to pass between CE and ISP.

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:22:00 +0200

> another router to get homenet functionality" a bit unsatisfactory.

I think there are two possible deployment models.

1. The « My Friendly ISP » model

Every ISP-provided CPE participates in HNCP.  Each ISP has access to all
the information flooded into the Homenet, including information about
External Links announced by other ISPs.

2. The « My Home, my Castle » model

HNCP ends at the Edge Home Router (EHR).  The CPE is outside the Homenet,
and the link between the CPE and the EHR is treated as External (untrusted)
by HNCP.  Information between the CPE and the Homenet is communicated over
non-Homenet protocols such as DHCPv6-PD.  The CPE has no topology
information about the Homenet, and doesn't even know that the Homenet is
connected to multiple CPEs.

Note that the « My Home, my Castle » model is more general, since it can
implement the « My Friendly ISP » model by co-locating the EHR and the
CPE.  I don't think the opposite is true -- once you've leaked HNCP data
to the ISP, there's no way to unleak it.

-- Juliusz

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:32:44 -0700

On 10/26/2017 08:22 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
 >On 10/24/2017 07:00 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
 >>
> 1. The « My Friendly ISP » model [...]
> 2. The « My Home, my Castle » model [...]

I agree.

> to the ISP, there's no way to unleak it.

Moreover, I don't believe there are any ISPs that are interested in the 
"My Friendly ISP" model at this time. And I would further contend that 
the word "friendly" is doing some rather Orwellian political work in 
that construction.

Accordingly, I strongly recommend that HOMENET dispense with the "My 
Friendly ISP" model with extreme prejudice, and adopt what I shall call 
the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy.

--james

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:39:52 +0200

Hi,

> the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy.

I claim that this is a sure way to kill homenet from being ever deployed.

"Normal" People just don't buy a second router for their ISP link if they
already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP
links.

So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going to
look like?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster

---

From: "David Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:57:23 -0400

> already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP
True, but a fair number of folks have just a L2 CPE like a cable modem 
device and provide their own router, as I do on Comcast cable.

> So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going 

DaveO

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:12:27 -0400

> already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP

Yup.   This is why Google Home, Apple Home, Amazon Echo, Eero, Ubiquiti, etc., have failed so completely to gain market share.

:)

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:53:32 -0700

> I claim that this is a sure way to kill homenet from being ever deployed.

I would counter that relying on ISPs to adopt a HOMENET standard is 
certain to fail. They have already demonstrated that they will block any 
revision to RFC 7084 that calls for adopting even HNCP, much less the 
rest of the HOMENET protocol stack.

If you want to kill HOMENET, then make it a predicate that ISPs have to 
adopt it. That will ensure it goes nowhere at all.

> So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going to

I think "normal" people don't even want to buy the 1st router for their 
ISP link. What they want to do is have the ISP link go straight to their 
internet-connected device. Like a smart phone does. When you buy a new 
device, you buy a new ISP link for it.

The protocols we are developing here in HOMENET are for the tiny 
minority of people who prefer to build their own home networks instead 
of just plumbing their ISP directly up to every device in their home. To 
facilitate that model, the HOMENET Castle Doctrine, I think we'll make 
its audience-- as well as ISPs-- happier, if we code our standards to 
the greatest common denominator of ISP linkage, then facilitate building 
HOMENET as a platform into which ISPs have zero visibility.

--james

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:15:01 -0400

> the word "friendly" is doing some rather Orwellian political work in

They do exist.
Unfortunately, they generally aren't large.

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 07:53:53 +0200

Hi,

> minority of people who prefer to build their own home networks instead 

In that case, we're wasting effort.  "The tiny minority" can just take
an OpenWRT box, install what they need on it, and run it whichever way
they want it.  No need for HNCP, these folks can install and configure
OSPF or ISIS if they want that, set up real DNS zones, etc.

The beauty of the HOMENET suite is "plug together a number of boxes
from different ISPs and vendors and it automatically leads to a nice
multihomed and network robust against failure or mis-plugging of
cables".  

"The tiny minority" does not need that, the large majority does.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:38:06 +0200

> The protocols we are developing here in HOMENET are for the tiny minority
> of people who prefer to build their own home networks instead of just
> plumbing their ISP directly up to every device in their home.

I think you're underestimating normal people, James.

I do not remember the last time I've been in a flat that didn't have:

  - an ISP-provided CPE;
  - a network-connected media playback device (either a Windows machine or
    a gaming console connected to a large);
  - a WiFi network with a password that's shared with the guests.

When people learn I'm a network person, they ask me suprisingly technical
questions.  Youtube stutters when I'm in the kitchen, how do I improve the
WiFi coverage without any new wires.  My wife uses a Mac, can I stream her
music to my android phone, I found an app for that but it didn't work
well.  What's the title of the movie you told me about, no, don't bother,
I'll find it on BitTorrent.

At least over here, there definitely is a market for non-trivial home networks:

  - flats in the 19th century areas of Paris, where WiFi has trouble
    crossing the thick walls and so you cannot easily put new cabling;
  - shared flats (students and young professionals), where each tenant
    wants good Internet access in their room, there's a shared media
    playback device and a shared NAS full of music;
  - student halls (a whole story in themselves);
  - people who need to provide WiFi access to others (small cafes, doctor
    waiting rooms, airBNB).

-- Juliusz

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:00:35 -0700

> I think you're underestimating normal people, James.

Bear with me please.

>    - a WiFi network with a password that's shared with the guests.

It's worth noting that in the vast majority of cases like you describe, 
the CE router provided by the ISP is only serviceable by the provider, 
or if it *is* serviceable by the subscriber, the serviceability is 
ridiculously tortuous and very limited.

 From the perspective of most "normal" subscribers, that Wi-Fi network 
with the password they share with guests is a service provided by their 
ISP, and it's *not* something they build themselves. I've lost count of 
the number of homes I've visited where the Wi-Fi network and its 
password were configured by the installer technician who pulled the 
cable, and never reconfigured after that.

People who like to build and operate their own home Wi-Fi network seem 
to be a very weird and obscure minority, even in the more utopian parts 
of Europa and not just the barbaric deserts of North America and elsewhere.

 > At least over here, there definitely is a market for non-trivial home 
networks

Indeed, and I think there is definitely a case for IETF establishing 
standards for how to use Internet protocols in them, as HOMENET is 
doing. What I don't think is helpful is gating our development of those 
standards on the predicate that ISPs should have anything to do with it. 
That way lies near certain complete failure.

--james

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 00:43:19 +0200

> Bear with me please.

With you -- always.

> the CE router provided by the ISP is only serviceable by the provider, or
> if it *is* serviceable by the subscriber, the serviceability is

Uh-huh.  But there's just one single uplink behind which there's a local
network with multiple hosts -- unlike the one uplink-one host topology you
were describing in your earlier mail.

> standards on the predicate that ISPs should have anything to do with

Agreed, as long as we don't assume normal people want one uplink per host.

-- Juliusz

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:17 -0700

> were describing in your earlier mail.

Yes, but the situation is confounded by not just A) devices that are 
capable of connecting to more than one service provider network, at 
times simultaneously and other times with some hand-over, and B) 
subscribers who have multiple devices that can each connect only to a 
different service provider.

An example of devices in category A include mobile handsets, e.g. 
Android and iPhone, which can hand-over between 3GPP and Wi-Fi networks 
without any user interaction.

An example of subscribers in category B include people with both a home 
security system that only connects through a 3GPP network and home 
appliances that only connect through a Wi-fi network.

> Agreed, as long as we don't assume normal people want one uplink per host.

My slightly more nuanced view is that normal people don't like (but 
they're going to have to put up with) the complexity of there being more 
than one way to connect their home devices to the Internet, e.g., 3GPP 
and Wi-fi (not to mention Thread), each with its own cost functions and 
performance characteristics.

Moreover, I think it would be a good aspirational goal to write and 
adopt a standard by which normal residential users can build and 
maintain residential networks independent of any particular first-mile 
like technology or service provider. To that end, my argument is that 
the standards we should pursue here in this working group should not 
depend on any particular service provider adopting it. Much less for the 
standard to be adopted by every service provider everywhere.

If it were up to me, I'd lock them out entirely. And take active 
measures to keep them locked out indefinitely. I realize this is 
probably a minority view, but I'm expressing here it anyway.

--james