* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Homenet Status Pages

Home Networking (Active WG)
Int Area: Brian Haberman, Ted Lemon | 2011-Jul-19 —  
Chairs
 
 


2014-08-19 charter

Home Networking (homenet)
-------------------------

 Charter

 Current Status: Active

 Chairs:
     Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
     Ray Bellis <ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk>

 Internet Area Directors:
     Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
     Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>

 Internet Area Advisor:
     Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>

 Tech Advisor:
     Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: homenet@ietf.org
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
     Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/

Description of Working Group:


    This working group focuses on the evolving networking technology
    within and among relatively small "residential home" networks. For
    example, an obvious trend in home networking is the proliferation of
    networking technology in an increasingly broad range and number of
    devices. This evolution in scale and diversity sets some requirements
    on IETF protocols. Some of the relevant trends include:

    o  Multiple segments: While less complex L3-toplogies involving as few
     subnets as possible are preferred in home networks for a variety of
     reasons including simpler management and service discovery, the
     introduction of more than one subnet into a home network is enough
     to add complexity that needs to be addressed, and multiple
     dedicated segments are necessary for some cases.  For instance, a
     common feature in modern home routers in the ability to support
     both guest and private network segments. Also, link layer
     networking technology is poised to become more heterogeneous, as
     networks begin to employ both traditional Ethernet technology and
     link layers designed for low-powered sensor networks. Finally,
     similar needs for segmentation may occur in other cases, such as
     separating building control or corporate extensions from the
     Internet access network for the home. Different segments may be
     associated with subnets that have different routing and security
     policies.

    o  Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is
     increasingly available in home gateway devices. While IPv6 resembles
     IPv4 in many ways, it changes address allocation principles and allows
     direct IP addressability and routing to devices in the home from the
     Internet. This is a promising area in IPv6 that has proved challenging
     in IPv4 with the proliferation of NAT.

    o  End-to-end communication is both an opportunity and a concern as it
     enables new applications but also exposes nodes in the internal
     networks to receipt of unwanted traffic from the Internet. Firewalls
     that restrict incoming connections may be used to prevent exposure,
     however, this reduces the efficacy of end-to-end connectivity that
     IPv6 has the potential to restore.

    Home networks need to provide the tools to handle these situations in
    a manner accessible to all users of home networks. Manual
    configuration is rarely, if at all, possible, as the necessary skills
    and in some cases even suitable management interfaces are missing.

    The purpose of this working group is to focus on this evolution, in
    particular as it addresses the introduction of IPv6, by developing an
    architecture addressing this full scope of requirements:

    o  prefix configuration for routers
    o  managing routing
    o  name resolution
    o  service discovery
    o  network security

    The task of the group is to 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, as appropriate. The architecture document should drive
    what protocols changes, if any, are necessary. Specific protocol work
    described below is expected to be within the scope of the working
    group once the architecture work is complete. However, the group is
    required to review its charter and milestones with the IESG and IETF
    community before submitting documents that make protocol changes. It
    is expected that the group has to discuss some of the below solutions,
    however, in order to complete the architecture work.

    The group will apply existing protocols to handle the five
    requirements above. For prefix configuration, existing protocols are
    likely sufficient, and at worst may need 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 by default. For name
    resolution and service discovery, extensions to existing
    multicast-based name resolution protocols are needed to enable them to
    work across subnets.

    For network 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 security policy
    that adapts to IPv6 threats as they emerge, taking into account not
    only traffic from the Internet at large, but within and leaving the
    home network itself.

    It is expected that the working group will define 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 not backwards
    compatible to existing IPv6 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 main focus of the working group is home
    networks, but the group's results may also find applications in other
    small networks. The group should assume that an IPv4 network may have
    to co-exist alongside the IPv6 network and should take this into
    account insofar as alignment with IPv6 is desirable. But the group
    should also ensure that even IPv6-only are possible, and while
    IP-version agnostic work is of course desirable, IPv4-specific work is
    outside the scope of the group.

    The working group will liaise with the relevant IETF working
    groups. 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 work with additional DNS requirements with 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 HOMENET working
    group providing the architecture and requirements for such
    enhancements. The working group will also liason with external
    standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative
    dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies.
    It is expected that in the architecture definition stage liaising with
    the Broadband Forum, DLNA, UPnP Forum, OASIS, ZigBee Alliance and
    other SDOs is necessary, as is understanding existing technology from
    these groups.



Goals and Milestones:
  Done     - Formation of the working group
  Done     - First WG draft on the architecture
  Done     - Submission of the architecture draft to the IESG as Informational RFC
  Dec 2011 - Charter re-evaluation based on the architecture work
  Dec 2011 - First WG draft on prefix configuration
  Dec 2011 - First WG draft on routing
  Jan 2012 - First WG draft on name resolution
  Feb 2012 - First WG draft on service discovery
  Feb 2012 - First WG draft on perimeter security
  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
  Sep 2012 - Submission of the name resolution draft to the IESG as Standards Track RFC
  Nov 2012 - Submission of the service discovery draft to the IESG as Standards Track RFC
  Dec 2012 - Submission of the perimeter security draft to the IESG as Informational RFC


All charter page changes, including changes to draft-list, rfc-list and milestones:



Generated from PyHt script /wg/homenet/charters.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -