[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                          L. Howard
Internet-Draft                                         Time Warner Cable
Intended status: Informational                         December 29, 2011
Expires: July 1, 2012


                      Homenet Routing Requirements
              draft-howard-homenet-routing-requirements-00

Abstract

   This document describes the requirements for routing in an unmanaged
   home network.

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 July 1, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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.






Howard                    Expires July 1, 2012                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            homenet-routing-reqs             December 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5











































Howard                    Expires July 1, 2012                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            homenet-routing-reqs             December 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document describes the requirements for routing in an unmanaged
   home network.  Home networks are evolving to include multiple routers
   and potentially multiple possible exits.  These exist may include
   multiple Internet access paths (through one or more multiple access
   providers), "walled garden" environments for video, VPN, or other
   service access, and smart energy devices.


2.  Requirements

      Reachability between all nodes in the home network.  Links may be
      Ethernet, WiFi, MoCA, or any other; test all solutions against
      mutliple L2 types.

      Border detection.  Any solution will have to determine the routing
      boundary.  It is assumed that no home networking device can handle
      a full routing table for the Internet, and that a home router
      should not be required to do so.

         Border may be upstream ISP, or may be a device that is a
         gateway to SmartGrid devices, e.g. a controller that speaks RPL
         to 802.15.4 and foo to home net.  Or there may be no border, if
         no external connection has been established.

         Must be able to find "up" (a path to the Internet), but must
         not be dependent on "up" (Internet connectivity) existing for
         intra-home reachability.

         May be discovered by routing protocol, or other means.

      Robust to routers being moved/added/removed/renumbered.
      Convergence time a few minutes or less.

      No configuration required.  It may be acceptable to require a
      single password or passphrase to be entered on each device, both
      for security, and to establish the administrative boundary.

      Best-path is a non-requirement.

      Support for multiple upstream networks is a requirement.

         Including wireless offload, video-only, and split-tunnel VPN
         scenarios.

         It may be assumed that each upstream will be connected via a
         separate router, not multihomed off the same router.



Howard                    Expires July 1, 2012                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            homenet-routing-reqs             December 2011


         Must support a prefix delegated from each provider.  How hosts
         handle multiple prefixes is not a routing problem.

         Load-balancing among providers is a non-requirement.

         If multiple upstream networks can provide a path to the same
         destination (such as an Internet host), the solution must allow
         for backup in case the router or link to one upstream fails.
         Failover time should be within a few minutes.

         Must support a "walled-garden" network.  This might routing
         based on either source address (from the walled garden network)
         or destination address (to the walled garden network); support
         for both is not required.

         Source address selection is out of scope for the routing
         solution.  Choosing which address to use to look up the
         destination address is out of scope for the routing solution.

      Cannot assume hierarchical prefix delegation in the home, unless
      the Homenet working group finds consensus on a hierarchical
      addressing mechanism.

      A host with mutliple upstream paths to the same destination (in-
      home or external) should be able to use another in case on fails.

      Prevent looping.

      Should be a lightweight solution.

      Must handle multi-dwelling units or other potential dense wireless
      or wired networks.

      Must be resilient to running on wireless networks.  Must be able
      to handle both wired and wireless links.

      Robustness in the face of unintentional joining of networks.


3.  Security Considerations

   As a requirements document, no security considerations are created.
   The solution should be safe from route injection to perpetrate man-
   in-the-middle attacks, especially in multi-dwelling or other dense/
   mesh networks, but this may be a link requirement more than a routing
   requirement.





Howard                    Expires July 1, 2012                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            homenet-routing-reqs             December 2011


4.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations or implications that arise from this
   document.


5.  Informative References

   [RFC6204]  Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., CableLabs, AT&T,
              and Cisco Systems, Inc., "Basic Requirements for IPv6
              Customer Edge Routers".


Author's Address

   Lee Howard
   Time Warner Cable
   13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Phone: +1 703 345 3513
   Email: lee.howard@twcable.com




























Howard                    Expires July 1, 2012                  [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/