[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 7788

Homenet Working Group                                        M. Stenberg
Internet-Draft                                                  S. Barth
Intended status: Standards Track                             Independent
Expires: May 30, 2016                                         P. Pfister
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       November 27, 2015


                    Home Networking Control Protocol
                       draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10

Abstract

   This document describes the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP),
   an extensible configuration protocol and a set of requirements for
   home network devices.  HNCP is described as a profile of and
   extension to the Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP).  HNCP
   enables discovery of network borders, automated configuration of
   addresses, name resolution, service discovery, and the use of any
   routing protocol which supports routing based on both source and
   destination address.

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 May 30, 2016.

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



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  DNCP Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  HNCP Versioning and Router Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Interface Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Interface Categories  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  DHCP Aided Auto-Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Algorithm for Border Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Autonomous Address Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Common Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  External Connections  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.3.1.  Prefix Assignment Algorithm Parameters  . . . . . . .  14
       6.3.2.  Making New Assignments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.3.3.  Applying Assignments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       6.3.4.  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.4.  Node Address Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.5.  Local IPv4 and ULA Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Configuration of Hosts and non-HNCP Routers . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.1.  IPv6 Addressing and Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  DHCPv6 for Prefix Delegation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.3.  DHCPv4 for Addressing and Configuration . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.4.  Multicast DNS Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   8.  Naming and Service Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  Securing Third-Party Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. Type-Length-Value Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.1.  HNCP Version TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     10.2.  External Connection TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       10.2.1.  Delegated Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       10.2.2.  DHCPv6 Data TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       10.2.3.  DHCPv4 Data TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.3.  Assigned Prefix TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.4.  Node Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     10.5.  DNS Delegated Zone TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     10.6.  Domain Name TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     10.7.  Node Name TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     10.8.  Managed PSK TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   11. General Requirements for HNCP Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     12.1.  Interface Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     12.2.  Security of Unicast Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     12.3.  Other Protocols in the Home  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     14.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     14.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix A.  Changelog [RFC Editor: please remove]  . . . . . . .  38
   Appendix B.  Draft source [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . . .  39
   Appendix C.  Implementation [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . .  39
   Appendix D.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

1.  Introduction

   Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) is designed to facilitate
   sharing of state among home routers to fulfill the needs of the IPv6
   homenet architecture [RFC7368], which assumes zero-configuration
   operation, multiple subnets, multiple home routers and (potentially)
   multiple upstream service providers providing (potentially) multiple
   prefixes to the home network.  While RFC7368 sets no requirements for
   IPv4 support, HNCP aims to support dual-stack mode of operation, and
   therefore the functionality is designed with that in mind.  The state
   is shared as TLVs transported in the DNCP node state among the
   routers (and potentially advanced hosts) to enable:

   o  Autonomic discovery of network borders (Section 5.3) based on
      Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP) topology.

   o  Automated portioning of prefixes delegated by the service
      providers as well as assigned prefixes to both HNCP and non-HNCP
      routers (Section 6.3) using [RFC7695].  Prefixes assigned to HNCP
      routers are used to:

      *  Provide addresses to non-HNCP aware nodes (using SLAAC and
         DHCP).

      *  Provide space in which HNCP nodes assign their own addresses
         (Section 6.4).

   o  Internal and external name resolution, as well as multi-link
      service discovery (Section 8).

   o  Other services not defined in this document, that do need to share
      state among homenet nodes, and do not cause rapid and constant TLV
      changes (see following applicability section).




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   HNCP is a DNCP [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]-based protocol and includes a
   DNCP profile which defines transport and synchronization details for
   sharing state across nodes defined in Section 3.  The rest of the
   document defines behavior of the services noted above, how the
   required TLVs are encoded (Section 10), as well as additional
   requirements on how HNCP nodes should behave (Section 11).

1.1.  Applicability

   While HNCP does not deal with routing protocols directly (except
   potentially informing them about internal and external interfaces if
   classification specified in Section 5.3 is used), in homenet
   environments where multiple IPv6 source-prefixes can be present,
   routing based on source and destination address is necessary
   [RFC7368].  Ideally, the routing protocol is also zero-configuration
   (e.g., no need to configure identifiers or metrics) although HNCP can
   be used also with a manually configured routing protocol.

   As HNCP uses DNCP as the actual state synchronization protocol, the
   applicability statement of DNCP applies here as well; HNCP should not
   be used for any data that changes rapidly and constantly.  If such
   data needs to be published in an HNCP network, a more applicable
   protocol should be used for those portions and locators to a server
   of said protocol can be announced using HNCP instead.  An example for
   this is naming and service discovery (Section 8) for which HNCP only
   transports DNS server addresses, and no actual per-name or per-
   service data of hosts.

   HNCP TLVs specified within this document, in steady state, stay
   constant, with one exception: as Delegated Prefix TLVs
   (Section 10.2.1) do contain lifetimes, they force re-publishing of
   that data every time the valid or preferred lifetimes of prefixes are
   updated (significantly).  Therefore, it is desirable for ISPs to
   provide large enough valid and preferred lifetimes to avoid
   unnecessary HNCP state churn in homes, but even given non-cooperating
   ISPs, the state churn is proportional only to the number of
   externally received delegated prefixes and not the home network size,
   and should therefore be relatively low.

   HNCP assumes a certain level of control over host configuration
   servers (e.g., DHCP [RFC2131]) on links that are managed by its
   routers.  Some HNCP functionality (such as border discovery or some
   aspects of naming) might be affected by existing DHCP servers not
   aware of the HNCP-managed network and thus might need to be
   reconfigured to not result in unexpected behavior.

   While HNCP routers can provide configuration to and receive
   configuration from non-HNCP routers, they are not able to traverse



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   such devices based solely on the protocol as defined in this
   document, i.e., HNCP routers that are connected only by different
   interfaces of a non-HNCP router will not be part of the same HNCP
   network.

   While HNCP is designed to be used by (home) routers, it can also be
   used by advanced hosts that want to do, e.g., their own address
   assignment and routing.

   HNCP is link layer agnostic; if a link supports IPv6 (link-local)
   multicast and unicast, HNCP will work on it.  Trickle retransmissions
   and keep-alives will handle both packet loss and non-transitive
   connectivity, ensuring eventual convergence.

2.  Terminology

   The following terms are used as they are defined in [RFC7695]:

   o  Advertised Prefix Priority

   o  Advertised Prefix

   o  Assigned Prefix

   o  Delegated Prefix

   o  Prefix Adoption

   o  Private Link

   o  Published Assigned Prefix

   o  Applied Assigned Prefix

   o  Shared Link

   The following terms are used as they are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]:

   o  DNCP profile

   o  Node identifier

   o  Link

   o  Interface





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   (HNCP) node       A device implementing this specification.
   (HNCP) router     A device implementing this specification, which
                     forwards traffic on behalf of other devices.
   highest node      When comparing the DNCP node identifiers of
   identifier        multiple nodes, the one that has the highest value
                     in a bitwise comparison.
   Border            separation point between administrative domains; in
                     this case, between the home network and any other
                     network, i.e., usually an ISP network.

   Internal link     a link that does not cross borders.
   Internal          an interface that is connected to an internal link.
   interface

   External          an interface that is connected to a link which is
   interface         not an internal link.

   Interface         a local configuration denoting the use of a
   category          particular interface.  The interface category
                     determines how a HNCP node should treat the
                     particular interface.  External and internal
                     category mark the interface as out of or within the
                     network border; there are also a number of sub-
                     categories to internal that further affect local
                     node behavior.  See Section 5.1 for a list of
                     interface categories and how they behave.  The
                     internal or external categories may also be auto-
                     detected (Section 5.3).

   Border router     a router announcing external connectivity and
                     forwarding traffic across the network border.

   Common Link       a set of nodes on a link which share a common view
                     of it, i.e., they see each other's traffic and the
                     same set of hosts.  Unless configured otherwise
                     transitive connectivity is assumed.

   DHCPv4            refers to Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
                     [RFC2131] in this document.
   DHCPv6            refers to Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
                     IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315] in this document.
   DHCP              refers to cases which apply to both DHCPv4 and
                     DHCPv6 in this document.








Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


2.1.  Requirements language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

3.  DNCP Profile

   The DNCP profile for HNCP is defined as follows:

   o  HNCP uses UDP datagrams on port HNCP-UDP-PORT as a transport over
      link-local scoped IPv6, using unicast and multicast (All-Homenet-
      Nodes is the HNCP group address).  Received datagrams where either
      or both of the IPv6 source or destination address is not link-
      local scoped MUST be ignored.  Replies to multicast and unicast
      messages MUST be sent to the IPv6 source address and port of the
      original message.  Each node MUST be able to receive (and
      potentially reassemble) UDP datagrams with a payload of at least
      4000 bytes.

   o  HNCP operates on multicast-capable interfaces only.  HNCP nodes
      MUST assign a non-zero 32-bit endpoint identifier to each
      interface for which HNCP is enabled.  The value zero is not used
      in DNCP TLVs, but has a special meaning in HNCP TLVs (see
      Section 10.3 and Section 6.4).  These identifiers MUST be locally
      unique within the scope of the node and using values equivalent to
      the IPv6 link-local scope identifiers for the given interfaces are
      RECOMMENDED.

   o  HNCP uses opaque 32-bit node identifiers
      (DNCP_NODE_IDENTIFIER_LENGTH = 32).  A node implementing HNCP
      SHOULD use a random node identifier.  If there is a node
      identifier collision (as specified in the Node State TLV handling
      of Section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]), the node MUST
      immediately generate and use a new random node identifier which is
      not used by any other node at the time, based on the current DNCP
      network state.

   o  HNCP nodes MUST use the leading 64 bits of the MD5 message digest
      [RFC1321] as the DNCP hash function H(x) used in building the DNCP
      hash tree.

   o  HNCP nodes MUST use DNCP's per-endpoint keep-alive extension on
      all endpoints.  The following parameters are suggested:

      *  Default keep-alive interval (DNCP_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL): 20
         seconds.



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


      *  Multiplier (DNCP_KEEPALIVE_MULTIPLIER): 2.1 on virtually
         lossless links works fine as it allows for one lost keep-alive.
         If used on a lossy link, considerably higher multiplier, such
         as 15, should be used instead.  In that case, an implementation
         might prefer shorter keep-alive intervals on that link as well
         to ensure that DNCP_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL *
         DNCP_KEEPALIVE_MULTIPLIER timeout after which (entirely) lost
         nodes time out is low enough.

   o  HNCP nodes use the following Trickle parameters for the per-
      interface Trickle instances:

      *  k SHOULD be 1, as the timer reset when data is updated and
         further retransmissions should handle packet loss.  Even on a
         non-transitive lossy link, the eventual per-endpoint keep-
         alives should ensure status synchronization occurs.

      *  Imin SHOULD be 200 milliseconds but MUST NOT be lower.  Note:
         Earliest transmissions may occur at Imin / 2.

      *  Imax SHOULD be 7 doublings of Imin [RFC6206] but MUST NOT be
         lower.

   o  HNCP unicast traffic SHOULD be secured using DTLS [RFC6347] as
      described in DNCP if exchanged over unsecured links.  UDP on port
      HNCP-DTLS-PORT is used for this purpose.  A node implementing HNCP
      security MUST support the DNCP Pre-Shared Key method, SHOULD
      support the PKI-based trust method and MAY support the DNCP
      Certificate Based Trust Consensus method.  [RFC7525] provides
      guidance on how to securely utilize DTLS.

   o  HNCP nodes MUST ignore all Node State TLVs received via multicast
      on a link which has DNCP security enabled in order to prevent
      spoofing of node state changes.

4.  HNCP Versioning and Router Capabilities

   Multiple versions of HNCP based on compatible DNCP profiles may be
   present in the same network when transitioning between HNCP versions
   and for troubleshooting purposes it might be beneficial to identify
   the HNCP agent version running.  Therefore each node MUST include an
   HNCP-Version TLV (Section 10.1) indicating the currently supported
   version in its Node Data and MUST ignore (except for DNCP
   synchronization purposes) any TLVs with a type greater than 32
   published by nodes not also publishing an HNCP-Version TLV.

   HNCP routers may also have different capabilities regarding
   interactions with hosts, e.g., for configuration or service



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   discovery.  These are indicated by M, P, H and L values.  The
   combined "capability value" is a metric indicated by interpreting the
   bits as an integer, i.e., (M << 12 | P << 8 | H << 4 | L).  These
   values are used to elect certain servers on a Common Link, as
   described in Section 7.  Nodes that are not routers MUST announce the
   value 0 for all capabilities.  Any node announcing the value 0 for a
   capability is considered to not advertise said capability and thus
   does not take part in the respective election.

5.  Interface Classification

5.1.  Interface Categories

   HNCP specifies the following categories interfaces can be configured
   to be in:

   Internal category:  This declares an interfaces to be internal, i.e.,
      within the borders of the HNCP network.  The interface MUST
      operate as a DNCP endpoint.  Routers MUST forward traffic with
      appropriate source addresses between their internal interfaces and
      allow internal traffic to reach external networks.  All nodes MUST
      implement this category and nodes not implementing any other
      category implicitly use it as a fixed default.

   External category:  This declares an interface to be external, i.e.,
      not within the borders of the HNCP network.  The interface MUST
      NOT operate as a DNCP endpoint.  Accessing internal resources from
      external interfaces is restricted, i.e., the use of Recommended
      Simple Security Capabilities in CPEs [RFC6092] is RECOMMENDED.
      HNCP routers SHOULD announce acquired configuration information
      for use in the network as described in Section 6.2, if the
      interface appears to be connected to an external network.  HNCP
      routers MUST implement this category.

   Leaf category:  This declares an interface used by client devices
      only.  Such an interface uses the Internal category with the
      exception that it MUST NOT operate as a DNCP endpoint This
      category SHOULD be supported by HNCP routers.

   Guest category:  This declares an interface used by untrusted client
      devices only.  In addition to the restrictions of the Leaf
      category, HNCP routers MUST filter traffic from and to the
      interface such that connected devices are unable to reach other
      devices inside the HNCP network or query services advertised by
      them unless explicitly allowed.  This category SHOULD be supported
      by HNCP routers.





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   Ad-hoc category:  This configures an interface to use the Internal
      category but no assumption is made about the the link's
      transitivity.  All other interface categories assume transitive
      connectivity.  This affects the Common Link (Section 6.1)
      definition.  Support for this category is OPTIONAL.

   Hybrid category:  This declares an interface to use the Internal
      category while still trying to acquire (external) configuration
      information on it, e.g., by running DHCP clients.  This is useful,
      e.g., if the link is shared with a non-HNCP router under control
      and still within the borders of the same network.  Detection of
      this category automatically in addition to manual configuration is
      out of scope of this document.  Support for this category is
      OPTIONAL.

5.2.  DHCP Aided Auto-Detection

   Auto-detection of interface categories is possible based on
   interaction with DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] servers on
   connected links.  HNCP defines special DHCP behavior to differentiate
   its internal servers from external ones in order to achieve this.
   Therefore all internal devices (including HNCP nodes) running DHCP
   servers on links where auto-detection is used by any HNCP node MUST
   use the following mechanism based on The User Class Option for DHCPv4
   [RFC3004] and its DHCPv6 counterpart [RFC3315]:

   o  The device MUST ignore or reject DHCP-Requests containing a DHCP
      User-Class consisting of the ASCII-String "HOMENET".

   Not following this rule (e.g., running unmodified DHCP servers) might
   lead to false positives when auto-detection is used, i.e., HNCP nodes
   assume an interface to not be internal, even though it was intended
   to be.

5.3.  Algorithm for Border Discovery

   This section defines the interface classification algorithm.  It is
   suitable for both IPv4 and IPv6 (single or dual-stack) and detects
   the category of an interface either automatically or based on a fixed
   configuration.  By determining the category for all interfaces, the
   network borders are implicitly defined, i.e., all interfaces not
   belonging to the External category are considered to be within the
   borders of the network, all others are not.

   The following algorithm MUST be implemented by any node implementing
   HNCP.  However, if the node does not implement auto-detection, only
   the first and last step are required.  The algorithm works as
   follows, with evaluation stopping at first match:



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   1.  If a fixed category is configured for an interface, it is used.

   2.  If a delegated prefix could be acquired by running a DHCPv6
       client, it is considered external.  The DHCPv6 client MUST have
       included a DHCPv6 User-Class consisting of the ASCII-String
       "HOMENET" in all of its requests.

   3.  If an IPv4 address could be acquired by running a DHCPv4 client
       on the interface, it is considered external.  The DHCPv4 client
       MUST have included a DHCP User-Class consisting of the ASCII-
       String "HOMENET" in all of its requests.

   4.  The interface is considered internal.

   Note that as other HNCP nodes will ignore the client due to the user
   class option, any server that replies is clearly external (or a
   malicious internal node).

   An HNCP router SHOULD allow setting the fixed category for each
   interface which may be connected to either an internal or external
   device (e.g., an Ethernet port that can be connected to a modem,
   another HNCP router or a client).  Note that all fixed categories
   except internal and external cannot be auto-detected and can only be
   selected using manual configuration.

   An HNCP router using auto-detection on an interface MUST run the
   appropriately configured DHCP clients as long as the interface
   without a fixed category is active (including states where auto-
   detection considers it to be internal) and rerun the algorithm above
   to react to conditions resulting in a different interface category.
   The router SHOULD wait for a reasonable time period (5 seconds as a
   default), during which the DHCP clients can acquire a lease, before
   treating a newly activated or previously external interface as
   internal.

6.  Autonomous Address Configuration

   This section specifies how HNCP nodes configure host and node
   addresses.  At first border routers share information obtained from
   service providers or local configuration by publishing one or more
   External Connection TLVs (Section 10.2).  These contain other TLVs
   such as Delegated Prefix TLVs (Section 10.2.1) which are then used
   for prefix assignment.  Finally, HNCP nodes obtain addresses either
   statelessly or using a specific stateful mechanism (Section 6.4).
   Hosts and non-HNCP routers are configured using SLAAC, DHCP or
   DHCPv6-PD.





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


6.1.  Common Link

   HNCP uses the concept of Common Link both in autonomic address
   configuration and naming and service discovery (Section 8).  A Common
   Link refers to the set of interfaces of nodes that see each other's
   traffic and presumably also the traffic of all hosts that may use the
   nodes to, e.g., forward traffic.  Common Links are used, e.g., to
   determine where prefixes should be assigned or which peers
   participate in the election of a DHCP server.  The Common Link is
   computed separately for each local internal interface, and it always
   contains the local interface.  Additionally, if the local interface
   is not set to ad-hoc category (see Section 5.1), it also contains the
   set of interfaces that are bidirectionally reachable from the given
   local interface, that is, every remote interface of a remote node
   meeting all of the following requirements:

   o  The local node publishes a Peer TLV with:

      *  Peer Node Identifier = remote node's node identifier

      *  Peer Endpoint Identifier = remote interface's endpoint
         identifier

      *  Endpoint Identifier = local interface's endpoint identifier

   o  The remote node publishes a Peer TLV with:

      *  Peer Node Identifier = local node's node identifier

      *  Peer Endpoint Identifier = local interface's endpoint
         identifier

      *  Endpoint Identifier = remote interface's endpoint identifier

   A node MUST be able to detect whether two of its local internal
   interfaces are connected, e.g., by detecting an identical remote
   interface being part of the Common Links of both local interfaces.

6.2.  External Connections

   Each HNCP router MAY obtain external connection information such as
   address prefixes, DNS server addresses and DNS search paths from one
   or more sources, e.g., DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633], NETCONF [RFC6241] or
   static configuration.  Each individual external connection to be
   shared in the network is represented by one External Connection TLV
   (Section 10.2).





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   Announcements of individual external connections can consist of the
   following components:

   Delegated Prefixes:   address space available for assignment to
      internal links announced using Delegated Prefix TLVs
      (Section 10.2.1).  Some address spaces might have special
      properties which are necessary to understand in order to handle
      them (e.g., information similar to [RFC6603]).  This information
      is encoded using DHCPv6 Data TLVs (Section 10.2.2) inside the
      respective Delegated Prefix TLVs.

   Auxiliary Information:   information about services such as DNS or
      time synchronization regularly used by hosts in addition to
      addressing and routing information.  This information is encoded
      using DHCPv6 Data TLVs (Section 10.2.2) and DHCPv4 Data TLVs
      (Section 10.2.3).

   Whenever information about reserved parts (e.g., as specified in
   [RFC6603]) is received for a delegated prefix, the reserved parts
   MUST be advertised using Assigned Prefix TLVs (Section 10.3) with the
   highest priority (i.e., 15), as if they were assigned to a Private
   Link.

   Some connections or delegated prefixes may have a special meaning and
   are not regularly used for internal or internet connectivity, instead
   they may provide access to special services like VPNs, sensor
   networks, VoIP, IPTV, etc.  Care must be taken that these prefixes
   are properly integrated and dealt with in the network, in order to
   avoid breaking connectivity for devices who are not aware of their
   special characteristics or to only selectively allow certain devices
   to use them.  Such prefixes are distinguished using Prefix Policy
   TLVs (Section 10.2.1.1).  Their contents MAY be partly opaque to HNCP
   nodes, and their identification and usage depends on local policy.
   However the following general rules MUST be adhered to:

      Special rules apply when making address assignments for prefixes
      with Prefix Policy TLVs with type 131, as described in
      Section 6.3.2

      In presence of any type 1 to 128 Prefix Policy TLV the prefix is
      specialized to reach destinations denoted by any such Prefix
      Policy TLV, i.e., in absence of a type 0 Prefix Policy TLV it is
      not usable for general internet connectivity.  An HNCP router MAY
      enforce this restriction with appropriate packet filter rules.







Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


6.3.  Prefix Assignment

   HNCP uses the Prefix Assignment Algorithm [RFC7695] in order to
   assign prefixes to HNCP internal links and uses some of the
   terminology (Section 2) defined there.  HNCP furthermore defines the
   Assigned Prefix TLV (Section 10.3) which MUST be used to announce
   Published Assigned Prefixes.

6.3.1.  Prefix Assignment Algorithm Parameters

   All HNCP nodes running the prefix assignment algorithm use the
   following values for its parameters:

   Node IDs:   HNCP node identifiers are used.  The comparison operation
      is defined as bit-wise comparison.

   Set of Delegated Prefixes:   The set of prefixes encoded in Delegated
      Prefix TLVs which are not strictly included in prefixes encoded in
      other Delegated Prefix TLVs.  Note that Delegated Prefix TLVs
      included in ignored External Connection TLVs are not considered.
      It is dynamically updated as Delegated Prefix TLVs are added or
      removed.

   Set of Shared Links:   The set of Common Links associated with
      interfaces with internal, leaf, guest or ad-hoc category.  It is
      dynamically updated as interfaces are added, removed, or switch
      from one category to another.  When multiple interfaces are
      detected as belonging to the same Common Link, prefix assignment
      is disabled on all of these interfaces except one.

   Set of Private Links:   This document defines Private Links
      representing DHCPv6-PD clients or as a mean to advertise prefixes
      included in the DHCPv6 Exclude Prefix option.  Other
      implementation-specific Private Links may be defined whenever a
      prefix needs to be assigned for a purpose that does not require a
      consensus with other HNCP nodes.

   Set of Advertised Prefixes:   The set of prefixes included in
      Assigned Prefix TLVs advertised by other HNCP nodes (Prefixes
      advertised by the local node are not in this set).  The associated
      Advertised Prefix Priority is the priority specified in the TLV.
      The associated Shared Link is determined as follows:

      *  If the Link Identifier is zero, the Advertised Prefix is not
         assigned on a Shared Link.

      *  If the other node's interface identified by the Link Identifier
         is included in one of the Common Links used for prefix



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


         assignment, it is considered as assigned on the given Common
         Link.

      *  Otherwise, the Advertised Prefix is not assigned on a Shared
         Link.

      Advertised Prefixes as well as their associated priorities and
      associated Shared Links MUST be updated as Assigned Prefix TLVs
      are added, updated or removed, and as Common Links are modified.

   ADOPT_MAX_DELAY:   The default value is 0 seconds (i.e., prefix
      adoption is done instantly).

   BACKOFF_MAX_DELAY:   The default value is 4 seconds.

   RANDOM_SET_SIZE:   The default value is 64.

   Flooding Delay:   The default value is 5 seconds.

   Default Advertised Prefix Priority:   When a new assignment is
      created or an assignment is adopted - as specified in the prefix
      assignment algorithm routine - the default Advertised Prefix
      Priority to be used is 2.

6.3.2.  Making New Assignments

   Whenever the prefix assignment algorithm subroutine (Section 4.1 of
   [RFC7695]) is run on a Common Link and whenever a new prefix may be
   assigned (case 1 of the subroutine: no Best Assignment and no Current
   Assignment), the decision of whether the assignment of a new prefix
   is desired MUST follow these rules in order:

      If the Delegated Prefix TLV contains a DHCPv6 Data TLV, and the
      meaning of one of the DHCP options is not understood by the HNCP
      node, the creation of a new prefix is not desired.  This rule
      applies to TLVs inside Delegated Prefix TLVs but not to those
      inside External Connection TLVs.

      If the remaining preferred lifetime of the prefix is 0 and there
      is another delegated prefix of the same IP version used for prefix
      assignment with a non-zero preferred lifetime, the creation of a
      new prefix is not desired.

      If the Delegated Prefix does not include a Prefix Policy TLV
      indicating restrictive assignment (type 131) or if local policy
      exists to identify it based on, e.g., other Prefix Policy TLV
      values and allows assignment, the creation of a new prefix is
      desired.



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


      Otherwise, the creation of a new prefix is not desired.

   If the considered delegated prefix is an IPv6 prefix, and whenever
   there is at least one available prefix of length 64, a prefix of
   length 64 MUST be selected unless configured otherwise.  In case no
   prefix of length 64 would be available, a longer prefix MAY be
   selected even without configuration.

   If the considered delegated prefix is an IPv4 prefix (Section 6.5
   details how IPv4 delegated prefixes are generated), a prefix of
   length 24 SHOULD be preferred.

   In any case, an HNCP router making an assignment MUST support a
   mechanism suitable to distribute addresses from the considered prefix
   if the link is intended to be used by clients.  In this case a router
   assigning an IPv4 prefix MUST announce the L-capability and a router
   assigning an IPv6 prefix with a length greater than 64 MUST announce
   the H-capability as defined in Section 4.

6.3.3.  Applying Assignments

   The prefix assignment algorithm indicates when a prefix is applied to
   the respective Common Link.  When that happens each router connected
   to said link:

      MUST forward traffic destined to said prefix to the respective
      link.

      MUST participate in the client configuration election as described
      in Section 7, if the link is intended to be used by clients.

      MAY add an address from said prefix to the respective network
      interface as described in Section 6.4, e.g., if it is to be used
      as source for locally originating traffic.

6.3.4.  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation

   When an HNCP router announcing the P-Capability (Section 4) receives
   a DHCPv6-PD request from a client, it SHOULD assign one prefix per
   delegated prefix in the network.  This set of assigned prefixes is
   then delegated to the client, after it has been applied as described
   in the prefix assignment algorithm.  Each DHCPv6-PD client MUST be
   considered as an independent Private Link and delegation MUST be
   based on the same set of Delegated Prefixes as the one used for
   Common Link prefix assignments, however the prefix length to be
   delegated MAY be smaller than 64.





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   The assigned prefixes MUST NOT be given to DHCPv6-PD clients before
   they are applied, and MUST be withdrawn whenever they are destroyed.
   As an exception to this rule, in order to shorten delays of processed
   requests, a router MAY prematurely give out a prefix which is
   advertised but not yet applied if it does so with a valid lifetime of
   not more than 30 seconds and ensures removal or correction of
   lifetimes as soon as possible.

6.4.  Node Address Assignment

   This section specifies how HNCP nodes reserve addresses for their own
   use.  Nodes MAY, at any time, try to reserve a new address from any
   Applied Assigned Prefix.  Each HNCP node SHOULD announce an IPv6
   address and - if it supports IPv4 - MUST announce an IPv4 address,
   whenever matching prefixes are assigned to at least one of its Common
   Links.  These addresses are published using Node Address TLVs and
   used to locally reach HNCP nodes for other services.  Nodes SHOULD
   NOT create and announce more than one assignment per IP version to
   avoid cluttering the node data with redundant information unless a
   special use case requires it.

   Stateless assignment based on Semantically Opaque Interface
   Identifiers [RFC7217] SHOULD be used for address assignment whenever
   possible (e.g., the prefix length is 64), otherwise (e.g., for IPv4
   if supported) the following method MUST be used instead: For any
   assigned prefix for which stateless assignment is not used, the first
   quarter of the addresses are reserved for HNCP based address
   assignments, whereas the last three quarters are left to the DHCP
   elected router (Section 4 specifies the DHCP server election
   process).  For example, if the prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is assigned and
   applied to a Common Link, addresses included in 192.0.2.0/26 are
   reserved for HNCP nodes and the remaining addresses are reserved for
   the elected DHCPv4 server.

   HNCP nodes assign themselves addresses, and then (to ensure eventual
   lack of conflicting assignments) publish the assignments using the
   Node Address TLV (Section 10.4).

   The process of obtaining addresses is specified as follows:

   o  A node MUST NOT start advertising an address if it is already
      advertised by another node.

   o  An assigned address MUST be part of an assigned prefix currently
      applied on a Common Link which includes the interface specified by
      the endpoint identifier.





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   o  An address MUST NOT be used unless it has been advertised for at
      least ADDRESS_APPLY_DELAY consecutive seconds, and is still
      currently being advertised.  The default value for
      ADDRESS_APPLY_DELAY is 3 seconds.

   o  Whenever the same address is advertised by more than one node, all
      but the one advertised by the node with the highest node
      identifier MUST be removed.

6.5.  Local IPv4 and ULA Prefixes

   HNCP routers can create a Unique Local Address (ULA) or private IPv4
   prefix to enable connectivity between local devices.  These prefixes
   are inserted in HNCP as if they were delegated prefixes of a
   (virtual) external connection (Section 6.2).  The following rules
   apply:

      An HNCP router SHOULD create a ULA prefix if there is no other
      IPv6 prefix with a preferred time greater than 0 in the network.
      It MAY also do so, if there are other delegated IPv6 prefixes, but
      none of which is locally generated (i.e., without any Prefix
      Policy TLV) and has a preferred time greater than 0.  However, it
      MUST NOT do so otherwise.  In case multiple locally generated ULA
      prefixes are present, only the one published by the node with the
      highest node identifier is kept among those with a preferred time
      greater than 0 - if there is any.

      An HNCP router MUST create a private IPv4 prefix [RFC1918]
      whenever it wishes to provide IPv4 internet connectivity to the
      network and no other private IPv4 prefix with internet
      connectivity currently exists.  It MAY also enable local IPv4
      connectivity by creating a private IPv4 prefix if no IPv4 prefix
      exists but MUST NOT do so otherwise.  In case multiple IPv4
      prefixes are announced, only the one published by the node with
      the highest node identifier is kept among those with a Prefix
      Policy of type 0 - if there is any.  The router publishing a
      prefix with internet connectivity MUST forward IPv4 traffic to the
      internet and perform NAT on behalf of the network as long as it
      publishes the prefix, other routers in the network MAY choose not
      to.

   Creation of such ULA and IPv4 prefixes MUST be delayed by a random
   timespan between 0 and 10 seconds in which the router MUST scan for
   others trying to do the same.

   When a new ULA prefix is created, the prefix is selected based on the
   configuration, using the last non-deprecated ULA prefix, or generated
   based on [RFC4193].



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


7.  Configuration of Hosts and non-HNCP Routers

   HNCP routers need to ensure that hosts and non-HNCP downstream
   routers on internal links are configured with addresses and routes.
   Since DHCP clients can usually only bind to one server at a time, a
   per-link and per-service election takes place.

   HNCP routers may have different capabilities for configuring
   downstream devices and providing naming services.  Each router MUST
   therefore indicate its capabilities as specified in Section 4 in
   order to participate as a candidate in the election.

7.1.  IPv6 Addressing and Configuration

   In general Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4861] is used for
   client configuration for its low overhead and fast renumbering
   capabilities.  Therefore each HNCP router sends Router Advertisements
   on interfaces which are intended to be used by clients and MUST at
   least include a Prefix Information Option for each Applied Assigned
   Prefix which it assigned to the respective link in every such
   advertisement.  However, stateful DHCPv6 can be used in addition by
   administrative choice, to, e.g., collect hostnames and use them to
   provide naming services or whenever stateless configuration is not
   applicable.

   The designated stateful DHCPv6 server for a Common Link (Section 6.1)
   is elected based on the capabilities described in Section 4.  The
   winner is the router (connected to the Common Link) advertising the
   greatest H-capability.  In case of a tie, Capability Values
   (Section 4) are compared, and the router with the greatest value is
   elected.  In case of another tie, the router with the highest node
   identifier is elected among the routers with tied Capability Values.

   The elected router MUST serve stateful DHCPv6 and SHOULD provide
   naming services for acquired hostnames as outlined in Section 8, all
   others nodes MUST NOT.  Stateful addresses SHOULD be assigned in a
   way not hindering fast renumbering even if the DHCPv6 server or
   client do not support the DHCPv6 reconfigure mechanism, e.g., by only
   handing out leases from locally-generated (ULA) prefixes and prefixes
   with a length different from 64, and by using low renew and rebind
   times (i.e., not longer than 5 minutes).  In case no router was
   elected, stateful DHCPv6 is not provided.  Routers which cease to be
   elected DHCP servers SHOULD - when applicable - invalidate remaining
   existing bindings in order to trigger client reconfiguration.







Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


7.2.  DHCPv6 for Prefix Delegation

   The designated DHCPv6 server for prefix-delegation on a Common Link
   is elected based on the capabilities described in Section 4.  The
   winner is the router (connected to the Common Link) advertising the
   greatest P-capability.  In case of a tie, Capability Values
   (Section 4) are compared, and the router with the greatest value is
   elected.  In case of another tie, the router with the highest node
   identifier is elected among the routers with tied Capability Values.

   The elected router MUST provide prefix-delegation services [RFC3633]
   on the given link (and follow the rules in Section 6.3.4), all other
   nodes MUST NOT.

7.3.  DHCPv4 for Addressing and Configuration

   The designated DHCPv4 server on a Common Link (Section 6.1) is
   elected based on the capabilities described in Section 4.  The winner
   is the router (connected to the Common Link) advertising the greatest
   L-capability.  In case of a tie, Capability Values (Section 4) are
   compared, and the router with the greatest value is elected.  In case
   of another tie, the router with the highest node identifier is
   elected among the routers with tied Capability Values.

   The elected router MUST provide DHCPv4 services on the given link,
   all other nodes MUST NOT.  The elected router MUST provide IP
   addresses from the pool defined in Section 6.4 and MUST announce
   itself as router [RFC2132] to clients.

   DHCPv4 lifetimes renew and rebind times (T1 and T2) SHOULD be short
   (i.e., not longer than 5 minutes) in order to provide reasonable
   response times to changes.  Routers which cease to be elected DHCP
   servers SHOULD - when applicable - invalidate remaining existing
   bindings in order to trigger client reconfiguration.

7.4.  Multicast DNS Proxy

   The designated MDNS [RFC6762] proxy on a Common Link is elected based
   on the capabilities described in Section 4.  The winner is the router
   (connected to the Common Link) advertising the greatest M-capability.
   In case of a tie, Capability Values (Section 4) are compared, and the
   router with the greatest value is elected.  In case of another tie,
   the router with the highest node identifier is elected among the
   routers with tied Capability Values.

   The elected router MUST provide an MDNS-proxy on the given link and
   announce it as described in Section 8.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


8.  Naming and Service Discovery

   Network-wide naming and service discovery can greatly improve the
   user-friendliness of a network.  The following mechanism provides
   means to setup and delegate naming and service discovery across
   multiple HNCP routers.

   Each HNCP router SHOULD provide and advertise a recursive name
   resolving server to clients which honors the announcements made in
   Delegated Zone TLVs (Section 10.5), Domain Name TLVs (Section 10.6)
   and Node Name TLVs (Section 10.7), i.e., delegate queries to the
   designated name servers and hand out appropriate A, AAAA and PTR
   records according to the mentioned TLVs.

   Each HNCP router SHOULD provide and announce an auto-generated or
   user-configured name for each internal Common Link (Section 6.1) for
   which it is the designated DHCPv4, stateful DHCPv6 server, MDNS
   proxy, or for which it provides forward or reverse DNS services on
   behalf of connected devices.  This announcement is done using
   Delegated Zone TLVs (Section 10.5) and MUST be unique in the whole
   network.  In case of a conflict the announcement of the node with the
   highest node identifier takes precedence and all other nodes MUST
   cease to announce the conflicting TLV.  HNCP routers providing
   recursive name resolving services MUST use the included DNS server
   address within the TLV to resolve names belonging to the zone as if
   there was an NS record.

   Each HNCP node SHOULD announce a node name for itself to be easily
   reachable and MAY announce names on behalf of other devices.
   Announcements are made using Node Name TLVs (Section 10.7) and the
   announced names MUST be unique in the whole network.  In case of a
   conflict the announcement of the node with the highest node
   identifier takes precedence and all other nodes MUST cease to
   announce the conflicting TLV.  HNCP routers providing recursive name
   resolving services as described above MUST resolve such announced
   names to their respective IP addresses as if there were corresponding
   A/AAAA records.

   Names and unqualified zones are used in an HNCP network to provide
   naming and service discovery with local significance.  A network-wide
   zone is appended to all single labels or unqualified zones in order
   to qualify them. ".home" is the default, however an administrator MAY
   configure announcing of a Domain Name TLV (Section 10.6) for the
   network to use a different one.  In case multiple are announced, the
   domain of the node with the greatest node identifier takes
   precedence.





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


9.  Securing Third-Party Protocols

   Pre-shared keys (PSKs) are often required to secure (for example)
   IGPs and other protocols which lack support for asymmetric security.
   The following mechanism manages PSKs using HNCP to enable
   bootstrapping of such third-party protocols.  The scheme SHOULD NOT
   be used unless in conjunction with secured HNCP unicast transport
   (i.e., DTLS), as transferring the PSK in plain-text anywhere in the
   network is a potential risk, especially as the originator may not
   know about security (and use of DNCP security) on all links.  The
   following rules define how such a PSK is managed and used:

   o  If no Managed PSK TLV (Section 10.8) is currently being announced,
      an HNCP node using this mechanism MUST create one after a random
      delay of 0 to 10 seconds with a 32 bytes long random key and add
      it to its node data.

   o  In case multiple nodes announce such a TLV at the same time, all
      but the one with the greatest node identifier stop advertising it
      and adopt the remaining one.

   o  The node currently advertising the Managed PSK TLV MUST generate
      and advertise a new random one whenever an unreachable node is
      removed from the DNCP topology as described in the Section 4.6 of
      [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp].

   PSKs for individual protocols SHOULD be derived from the random PSK
   using a suitable one-way hashing algorithm (e.g., by using HMAC-
   SHA256 based HKDF [RFC6234] with the particular protocol name in the
   info field) so that disclosure of any derived key does not impact
   other users of the managed PSK.  Furthermore derived PSKs MUST be
   updated whenever the managed PSK changes.

10.  Type-Length-Value Objects

   HNCP defines the following TLVs in addition to those defined by DNCP.
   The same general rules and defaults for encoding as noted in
   Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp] apply.  Note that most HNCP
   variable-length TLVs also support optional nested TLVs, and they are
   encoded after the variable length content, followed by the zero
   padding of the variable length content to the next 32-bit boundary.

   TLVs defined here are only valid when appearing in their designated
   context, i.e., only directly within container TLVs mentioned in their
   definition, or - absent any mentions - only as top-level TLVs within
   the node data set.  TLVs appearing outside their designated context
   MUST be ignored.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   TLVs encoding IP addresses or prefixes allow encoding both IPv6 and
   IPv4 addresses and prefixes.  IPv6 information is encoded as is,
   whereas for IPv4 IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses format [RFC4291] is used
   and prefix lengths are encoded as original IPv4 prefix length
   increased by 96.

10.1.  HNCP Version TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: HNCP-VERSION (32)    |         Length: >= 5          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Reserved            |   M   |   P   |   H   |   L   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          User-agent                           |

   This TLV is used to indicate the supported version and router
   capabilities of an HNCP node as described in Section 4.

   Reserved:  Bits are reserved for future use.  They MUST be set to
      zero when creating this TLV, and their value MUST be ignored when
      processing the TLV.

   M-capability:  Priority value used for electing the on-link MDNS
      [RFC6762] proxy.  It MUST be set to 0 if the router is not capable
      of proxying MDNS, otherwise it SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set
      to any value from 1 to 7 to indicate a non-default priority.  The
      values 8-15 are reserved for future use.

   P-capability:  Priority value used for electing the on-link DHCPv6-PD
      server.  It MUST be set to 0 if the router is not capable of
      providing prefixes through DHCPv6-PD (Section 6.3.4), otherwise it
      SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set to any value from 1 to 7 to
      indicate a non-default priority.  The values 8-15 are reserved for
      future use.

   H-capability:  Priority value used for electing the on-link DHCPv6
      server offering non-temporary addresses.  It MUST be set to 0 if
      the router is not capable of providing such addresses, otherwise
      it SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set to any value from 1 to 7 to
      indicate a non-default priority.  The values 8-15 are reserved for
      future use.

   L-capability:  Priority value used for electing the on-link DHCPv4
      server.  It MUST be set to 0 if the router is not capable of
      running a legacy DHCPv4 server offering IPv4 addresses to clients,
      otherwise it SHOULD be set to 4 but MAY be set to any value from 1



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


      to 7 to indicate a non-default priority.  The values 8-15 are
      reserved for future use.

   User-Agent:  The user-agent is a human-readable UTF-8 string that
      describes the name and version of the current HNCP implementation.

10.2.  External Connection TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Type: EXTERNAL-CONNECTION (33)|             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |

   An External Connection TLV is a container TLV used to gather network
   configuration information associated with a single external
   connection (Section 6.2) to be shared across the HNCP network.  A
   node MAY publish an arbitrary number of instances of this TLV to
   share the desired number of external connections.  Upon reception,
   the information transmitted in any nested TLVs is used for the
   purposes of prefix assignment (Section 6.3) and host configuration
   (Section 7).

10.2.1.  Delegated Prefix TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type: DELEGATED-PREFIX (34)  |          Length: >= 9         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Valid Lifetime Since Origination               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Preferred Lifetime Since Origination             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Prefix Length |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            Prefix                             +
   ...
   |                                               | 0-pad if any  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |

   The Delegated Prefix TLV is used by HNCP routers to advertise
   prefixes which are allocated to the whole network and can be used for
   prefix assignment.  Delegated Prefix TLVs are only valid inside
   External Connection TLVs and their prefixes MUST NOT overlap with
   those of other such TLVs in the same container.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   Valid Lifetime Since Origination:   The time in seconds the delegated
      prefix was valid for at the origination time of the node data
      containing this TLV.  The value MUST be updated whenever the node
      republishes its Node State TLV.

   Preferred Lifetime Since Origination:   The time in seconds the
      delegated prefix was preferred for at the origination time of the
      node data containing this TLV.  The value MUST be updated whenever
      the node republishes its Node State TLV.

   Prefix Length:   The number of significant bits in the Prefix.

   Prefix:   Significant bits of the prefix padded with zeroes up to the
      next byte boundary.

10.2.1.1.  Prefix Policy TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: PREFIX-POLICY (43)   |          Length: >= 1         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Policy Type  |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                    Value                      +
   |                                                               |

   The Prefix Policy TLV contains information about the policy or
   applicability of a delegated prefix.  This information can be used to
   determine whether prefixes for a certain usecase (e.g., local
   reachability, internet connectivity) do exist or are to be acquired
   and to make decisions about assigning prefixes to certain links or to
   fine-tune border firewalls.  See Section 6.2 for a more in-depth
   discussion.  This TLV is only valid inside a Delegated Prefix TLV.

   Policy Type:   The type of the policy identifier.

      0      :  Internet connectivity (no Value).

      1-128 :  Explicit destination prefix with the Policy Type being
         the actual length of the prefix and the Value containing
         significant bits of the destination prefix padded with zeroes
         up to the next byte boundary.

      129 :  DNS Domain.  The Value contains an RFC 1035 [RFC1035]
         encoded DNS label sequence.  Compression MUST NOT be used.  The
         label sequence MUST end with an empty label.

      130    :  Opaque UTF-8 string (e.g., for administrative purposes).



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


      131    :  Restrictive Assignment (no Value).

      132-255:  Reserved for future additions.

   Value:   A variable length identifier of the given type.

10.2.2.  DHCPv6 Data TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: DHCPV6-DATA (37)     |          Length: > 0          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      DHCPv6 option stream                     |

   This TLV is used to encode auxiliary IPv6 configuration information
   (e.g., recursive DNS servers) encoded as a stream of DHCPv6 options.
   It is only valid in an External Connection TLV or a Delegated Prefix
   TLV encoding an IPv6 prefix and MUST NOT occur more than once in any
   single container.  When included in an External Connection TLV, it
   contains DHCPv6 options relevant to the External Connection as a
   whole.  When included in a Delegated Prefix, it contains options
   mandatory to handle said prefix.

   DHCPv6 option stream:   DHCPv6 options encoded as specified in
      [RFC3315].

10.2.3.  DHCPv4 Data TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type: DHCPV4-DATA (38)    |          Length: > 0          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       DHCPv4 option stream                    |

   This TLV is used to encode auxiliary IPv4 configuration information
   (e.g., recursive DNS servers) encoded as a stream of DHCPv4 options.
   It is only valid in an External Connection TLV and MUST NOT occur
   more than once in any single container.  It contains DHCPv4 options
   relevant to the External Connection as a whole.

   DHCPv4 option stream:   DHCPv4 options encoded as specified in
      [RFC2131].







Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


10.3.  Assigned Prefix TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type: ASSIGNED-PREFIX (35)   |          Length: >= 6         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Endpoint Identifier                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Rsv. | Prty. | Prefix Length |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+            Prefix             +
   ...
   |                                               | 0-pad if any  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |

   This TLV is used to announce Published Assigned Prefixes for the
   purposes of prefix assignment (Section 6.3).

   Endpoint Identifier:   The endpoint identifier of the local interface
      the prefix is assigned to, or 0 if it is assigned to a Private
      Link (e.g., when the prefix is assigned for downstream prefix
      delegation).

   Rsv.:   Bits are reserved for future use.  They MUST be set to zero
      when creating this TLV, and their value MUST be ignored when
      processing the TLV.

   Prty:   The Advertised Prefix Priority from 0 to 15.

      0-1  :  Low priorities.

      2    :  Default priority.

      3-7  :  High priorities.

      8-11 :  Administrative priorities.  MUST NOT be used unless
         configured otherwise.

      12-14:  Reserved for future use.

      15   :  Provider priorities.  MAY only be used by the router
         advertising the corresponding delegated prefix and based on
         static or dynamic configuration (e.g., for excluding a prefix
         based on DHCPv6-PD Prefix Exclude Option [RFC6603]).

   Prefix Length:   The number of significant bits in the Prefix field.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   Prefix:   The significant bits of the prefix padded with zeroes up to
      the next byte boundary.

10.4.  Node Address TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: NODE-ADDRESS (36)    |           Length: 20          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Endpoint Identifier                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                           IP Address                          |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |

   This TLV is used to announce addresses assigned to an HNCP node as
   described in Section 6.4.

   Endpoint Identifier:   The endpoint identifier of the local interface
      the prefix is assigned to, or 0 if it is not assigned on an HNCP
      enabled link.

   IP Address:   The globally scoped IPv6 address, or the IPv4 address
      encoded as an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address [RFC4291].

10.5.  DNS Delegated Zone TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Type: DNS-DELEGATED-ZONE (39) |        Length: >= 17          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                           IP Address                          |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Reserved |L|B|S|                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  Zone  (DNS label sequence - variable length) |
   ...
   |                                               | 0-pad if any  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   This TLV is used to announce a forward or reverse DNS zone delegation
   in the HNCP network.  Its meaning is roughly equivalent to specifying
   an NS and A/AAAA record for said zone.  Details are specified in
   Section 8.

   IP Address :  The IPv6 address of the authoritative DNS server for
      the zone; IPv4 addresses are represented as IPv4-mapped addresses
      [RFC4291].  The special value of :: (all-zero) means the
      delegation is available in the global DNS-hierarchy.

   Reserved :  Those bits MUST be set to zero when creating the TLV and
      ignored when parsing it unless defined in a later specification.

   L-bit :  DNS-SD [RFC6763] Legacy-Browse, indicates that this
      delegated zone SHOULD be included in the network's DNS-SD legacy
      browse list of domains at lb._dns- sd._udp.(DOMAIN-NAME).  Local
      forward zones SHOULD have this bit set, reverse zones SHOULD NOT.

   B-bit :  (DNS-SD [RFC6763] Browse) indicates that this delegated zone
      SHOULD be included in the network's DNS-SD browse list of domains
      at b._dns-sd._udp.  (DOMAIN-NAME).  Local forward zones SHOULD
      have this bit set, reverse zones SHOULD NOT.

   S-bit :  (fully-qualified DNS-SD [RFC6763] domain) indicates that
      this delegated zone consists of a fully-qualified DNS-SD domain,
      which should be used as base for DNS-SD domain enumeration, i.e.,
      _dns-sd._udp.(Zone) exists.  Forward zones MAY have this bit set,
      reverse zones MUST NOT.  This can be used to provision DNS search
      path to hosts for non-local services (such as those provided by an
      ISP, or other manually configured service providers).  Zones with
      this flag SHOULD be added to the search domains advertised to
      clients.

   Zone :  The label sequence encoded according to [RFC1035].
      Compression MUST NOT be used.  The label sequence MUST end with an
      empty label.

10.6.  Domain Name TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: DOMAIN-NAME (40)     |         Length: > 0           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Domain (DNS label sequence - variable length)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   This TLV is used to indicate the base domain name for the network as
   specified in Section 8.  This TLV MUST NOT be announced unless the
   domain name was explicitly configured by an administrator.

   Domain:   The label sequence encoded according to [RFC1035].
      Compression MUST NOT be used.  The label sequence MUST end with an
      empty label.

10.7.  Node Name TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type: NODE-NAME (41)      |         Length: > 17          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                           IP Address                          |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Length    |       Name                                    |
    ...
   | (not null-terminated, variable length)        | 0-pad if any  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |

   This TLV is used to assign the name of a node in the network to a
   certain IP address as specified in Section 8.

   IP Address:   The IP address associated with the name.  IPv4
      addresses are encoded using IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.

   Length:   The length of the name (0-63).

   Name:   The name of the node as a single DNS label.

10.8.  Managed PSK TLV














Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: MANAGED-PSK (42)     |          Length: 32           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                      Random 256-bit PSK                       |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     (Optional nested TLVs)                    |

   This TLV is used to announce a PSK for securing third-party protocols
   exclusively supporting symmetric cryptography as specified in
   Section 9.

11.  General Requirements for HNCP Nodes

   Each node implementing HNCP is subject to the following requirements:

   o  It MUST implement HNCP-Versioning (Section 4) and Interface
      Classification (Section 5).

   o  It MUST implement and run the method for securing third-party
      protocols (Section 9) whenever it uses the security mechanism of
      HNCP.

   If the node is acting as a router, then the following requirements
   apply in addition:

   o  It MUST support Autonomous Address Configuration (Section 6) and
      Configuration of Hosts and non-HNCP Routers (Section 7).

   o  It SHOULD implement support for the Service Discovery and Naming
      (Section 8) as defined in this document.

   o  It MAY be able to provide connectivity to IPv4-devices using
      DHCPv4.

   o  It SHOULD be able to delegate prefixes to legacy IPv6 routers
      using DHCPv6-PD (Section 6.3.4).






Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   o  In addition, normative language of Basic Requirements for IPv6
      Customer Edge Routers [RFC7084] applies with the following
      adjustments:

      *  The generic requirements G-4 and G-5 are relaxed such that any
         known default router on any interface is sufficient for a
         router to announce itself as default router, similarly only the
         loss of all such default routers results in self-invalidation.

      *  The section "WAN-Side Configuration" applies to interfaces
         classified as external.

      *  If the CE sends a size-hint as indicated in WPD-2, the hint
         MUST NOT be determined by the number of LAN-interfaces of the
         CE, but SHOULD instead be large enough to at least accommodate
         prefix assignments announced for existing delegated or ULA-
         prefixes, if such prefixes exist and unless explicitly
         configured otherwise.

      *  The dropping of packets with a destination address belonging to
         a delegated prefix mandated in WPD-5 MUST NOT be applied to
         destinations that are part of any prefix announced using an
         Assigned Prefix TLV by any HNCP router in the network.

      *  The section "LAN-Side Configuration" applies to interfaces not
         classified as external.

      *  The requirement L-2 to assign a separate /64 to each LAN
         interface is replaced by the participation in the prefix
         assignment mechanism (Section 6.3) for each such interface.

      *  The requirement L-9 is modified, in that the M flag MUST be set
         if and only if a router connected to the respective Common Link
         is advertising a non-zero H-capability.  The O flag SHOULD
         always be set.

      *  The requirement L-12 to make DHCPv6 options available is
         adapted, in that a CER SHOULD publish the subset of options
         using the DHCPv6 Data TLV in an External Connection TLV.
         Similarly it SHOULD do the same for DHCPv4 options in a DHCPv4
         Data TLV.  DHCPv6 options received inside an OPTION_IAPREFIX
         [RFC3633] MUST be published using a DHCPv6 Data TLV inside the
         respective Delegated Prefix TLV.  HNCP routers SHOULD make
         relevant DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 options available to clients, i.e.,
         options contained in External Connection TLVs that also include
         delegated prefixes from which a subset is assigned to the
         respective link.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


      *  The requirement L-13 to deprecate prefixes is applied to all
         delegated prefixes in the network from which assignments have
         been made on the respective interface.  Furthermore the Prefix
         Information Options indicating deprecation MUST be included in
         Router Advertisements for the remainder of the prefixes'
         respective valid lifetime, but MAY be omitted after at least 2
         hours have passed.

12.  Security Considerations

   HNCP enables self-configuring networks, requiring as little user
   intervention as possible.  However this zero-configuration goal
   usually conflicts with security goals and introduces a number of
   threats.

   General security issues for existing home networks are discussed in
   [RFC7368].  The protocols used to set up addresses and routes in such
   networks to this day rarely have security enabled within the
   configuration protocol itself.  However these issues are out of scope
   for the security of HNCP itself.

   HNCP is a DNCP-based state synchronization mechanism carrying
   information with varying threat potential.  For this consideration
   the payloads defined in DNCP and this document are reviewed:

   o  Network topology information such as HNCP nodes and their common
      links.

   o  Address assignment information such as delegated and assigned
      prefixes for individual links.

   o  Naming and service discovery information such as auto-generated or
      customized names for individual links and nodes.

12.1.  Interface Classification

   As described in Section 5.3, an HNCP node determines the internal or
   external state on a per-interface basis.  A firewall perimeter is set
   up for the external interfaces, and for internal interfaces, HNCP
   traffic is allowed, with the exception of leaf and guest sub-
   categories.

   Threats concerning automatic interface classification cannot be
   mitigated by encrypting or authenticating HNCP traffic itself since
   external routers do not participate in the protocol and often cannot
   be authenticated by other means.  These threats include propagation
   of forged uplinks in the homenet in order to, e.g., redirect traffic




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   destined to external locations and forged internal status by external
   routers to, e.g., circumvent the perimeter firewall.

   It is therefore imperative to either secure individual links on the
   physical or link-layer or preconfigure the adjacent interfaces of
   HNCP routers to an appropriate fixed category in order to secure the
   homenet border.  Depending on the security of the external link
   eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle and similar attacks on external
   traffic can still happen between a homenet border router and the ISP,
   however these cannot be mitigated from inside the homenet.  For
   example, DHCPv4 has defined [RFC3118] to authenticate DHCPv4
   messages, but this is very rarely implemented in large or small
   networks.  Further, while PPP can provide secure authentication of
   both sides of a point to point link, it is most often deployed with
   one-way authentication of the subscriber to the ISP, not the ISP to
   the subscriber.

12.2.  Security of Unicast Traffic

   Once the homenet border has been established there are several ways
   to secure HNCP against internal threats like manipulation or
   eavesdropping by compromised devices on a link which is enabled for
   HNCP traffic.  If left unsecured, attackers may perform arbitrary
   traffic redirection, eavesdropping, spoofing or denial of service
   attacks on HNCP services such as address assignment or service
   discovery, and the protocols secured using HNCP-derived keys such as
   routing protocols.

   Detailed interface categories like "leaf" or "guest" can be used to
   integrate not fully trusted devices to various degrees into the
   homenet by not exposing them to HNCP traffic or by using firewall
   rules to prevent them from reaching homenet-internal resources.

   On links where this is not practical and lower layers do not provide
   adequate protection from attackers, DTLS-based secure unicast
   transport MUST be used to secure traffic.

12.3.  Other Protocols in the Home

   IGPs and other protocols are usually run alongside HNCP therefore the
   individual security aspects of the respective protocols must be
   considered.  It can however be summarized that many protocols to be
   run in the home (like IGPs) provide - to a certain extent - similar
   security mechanisms.  Most of these protocols do not support
   encryption and only support authentication based on pre-shared keys
   natively.  This influences the effectiveness of any encryption-based
   security mechanism deployed by HNCP as homenet routing information is
   thus usually not encrypted.



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


13.  IANA Considerations

   IANA should set up a registry for the (decimal values within range
   32-511) "HNCP TLV Types" under "Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
   (DNCP)", with the following initial contents:

      32: HNCP-Version

      33: External-Connection

      34: Delegated-Prefix

      35: Assigned-Prefix

      36: Node-Address

      37: DHCPv4-Data

      38: DHCPv6-Data

      39: DNS-Delegated-Zone

      40: Domain-Name

      41: Node-Name

      42: Managed-PSK

      43: Prefix-Policy

      44-511: Free - policy of 'RFC required' [RFC5226] should be used.

      The range reserved by DNCP for Private Use (768-1023) is used by
      HNCP for per-implementation experimentation.  How collisions are
      avoided is out of the scope of this document.

   HNCP requires allocation of well-known UDP port numbers HNCP-UDP-PORT
   (service name: hncp-udp-port, description: HNCP) and HNCP-DTLS-PORT
   (service name: hncp-dtls-port, description: HNCP over DTLS), as well
   as an IPv6 link-local multicast address All-Homenet-Nodes.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative references







Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]
              Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus
              Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-12 (work in progress),
              November 2015.

   [RFC7695]  Pfister, P., Paterson, B., and J. Arkko, "Distributed
              Prefix Assignment Algorithm", RFC 7695, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC7695, November 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7695>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

   [RFC6603]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O.
              Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
              Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.

   [RFC6206]  Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
              "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
              March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.

   [RFC3004]  Stump, G., Droms, R., Gu, Y., Vyaghrapuri, R., Demirtjis,
              A., Beser, B., and J. Privat, "The User Class Option for
              DHCP", RFC 3004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3004, November 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3004>.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
              2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.





Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC1321]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, April 1992,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1321>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
              Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2132>.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

   [RFC7217]  Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
              Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC7217, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
              Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
              Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.

14.2.  Informative references

   [RFC3118]  Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh., Ed., "Authentication for DHCP
              Messages", RFC 3118, DOI 10.17487/RFC3118, June 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3118>.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC7368]  Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
              Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles", RFC
              7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC7084]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
              Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.

Appendix A.  Changelog [RFC Editor: please remove]

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10: Mainly IESG review based changes, no real
   content change.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Added nested TLV definitions for variable
   length TLVs.  NOTE: Node name TLV encoding includes now length byte.
   Version TLV now itself indicates version.




Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-08: Editorial reorganization.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-07: Using version 1 instead of version 0, as
   existing implementations already use it.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-06: Various edits based on feedback,
   hopefully without functional delta.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-05: Renamed "Adjacent Link" to "Common Link".
   Changed single IPv4 uplink election from MUST to MAY.  Added explicit
   indication to distinguish (IPv4)-PDs for local connectivity and ones
   with uplink connectivity allowing, e.g., better local-only
   IPv4-connectivity.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-04: Change the responsibility for sending RAs
   to the router assigning the prefix.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-03: Split to DNCP (generic protocol) and HNCP
   (homenet profile).

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-02: Removed any built-in security.  Relying
   on IPsec.  Reorganized interface categories, added requirements
   languages, made manual border configuration a MUST-support.
   Redesigned routing protocol election to consider non-router devices.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-01: Added (MAY) guest, ad-hoc, hybrid
   categories for interfaces.  Removed old hnetv2 reference, and now
   pointing just to OpenWrt + github.  Fixed synchronization algorithm
   to spread also same update number, but different data hash case.
   Made purge step require bidirectional connectivity between nodes when
   traversing the graph.  Edited few other things to be hopefully
   slightly clearer without changing their meaning.

   draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-00: Added version TLV to allow for TLV
   content changes pre-RFC without changing IDs.  Added link id to
   assigned address TLV.

Appendix B.  Draft source [RFC Editor: please remove]

   This draft is available at https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/ in
   source format.  Issues and pull requests are welcome.

Appendix C.  Implementation [RFC Editor: please remove]

   A GPLv2-licensed implementation of HNCP is currently under
   development at https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd/ and binaries are
   available in the OpenWrt package repositories (
   http://www.openwrt.org ).  See http://www.homewrt.org/



Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft      Home Networking Control Protocol       November 2015


   doku.php?id=run-conf for more information.  Feedback and
   contributions are welcome.

Appendix D.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Ole Troan, Mark Baugher, Mark Townsley, Juliusz Chroboczek
   and Thomas Clausen for their contributions to the draft.

   Thanks to Eric Kline for the original border discovery work.

Authors' Addresses

   Markus Stenberg
   Independent
   Helsinki  00930
   Finland

   Email: markus.stenberg@iki.fi


   Steven Barth
   Independent
   Halle  06114
   Germany

   Email: cyrus@openwrt.org


   Pierre Pfister
   Cisco Systems
   Paris
   France

   Email: pierre.pfister@darou.fr

















Stenberg, et al.          Expires May 30, 2016                 [Page 40]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.119, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/