idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 01, 2021) is 1115 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-12 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Homenet D. Migault 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Standards Track R. Weber 5 Expires: October 3, 2021 Akamai 6 T. Mrugalski 7 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. 8 C. Griffiths 10 W. Cloetens 11 Deutsche Telekom 12 April 01, 2021 14 DHCPv6 Options for Home Network Naming Authority 15 draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-10 17 Abstract 19 This document defines DHCPv6 options so an agnostic Homenet Naming 20 Authority (HNA) can automatically proceed to the appropriate 21 configuration and outsource the authoritative naming service for the 22 home network. In most cases, the outsourcing mechanism is 23 transparent for the end user. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 3, 2021. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 4. Payload Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4.1. Registered Homenet Domain Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 4.2. Distribution Master Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4.2.1. Supported Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 4.3. Reverse Distribution Master Server Option . . . . . . . . 6 67 5. DHCP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 5.1. DHCPv6 Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 5.2. DHCPv6 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 5.3. DHCPv6 Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 7. Security Considerations" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 Appendix A. Scenarios and impact on the End User . . . . . . . . 11 78 Appendix B. Base Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 79 B.1. Third Party Registered Homenet Domain . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 B.2. Third Party DNS Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 B.3. Multiple ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 1. Terminology 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 88 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 89 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 90 capitals, as shown here. 92 The reader is expected to be familiar with 93 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] and its terminology 94 section. 96 2. Introduction 98 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] describes how Homenet 99 Naming Authority (HNA) outsources the Public Homenet Zone to an 100 Outsourcing Infrastructure. 102 This document shows how an ISP can provision automatically the HNA 103 with a DNS Outsourcing Infrastructure (DOI). Most likely the DOI 104 will be - at least partly be - managed or provided by its ISP, but 105 other cases may envision the ISP storing some configuration so the 106 homenet becomes resilient to HNA replacement. 108 The ISP delegates the home network an IP prefix it owns as well as 109 the associated reverse zone. 110 The ISP is well aware of the owner of that prefix, and as such 111 becomes a natural candidate for hosting the Homenet Reverse Zone - 112 that is the Reverse Distribution Master (RDM) and potentially the 113 Reverse Public Authoritative Servers. 115 In addition, the ISP often identifies the home network with a name. 116 In most cases, the name is used by the ISP for its internal network 117 management operations and is not a name the home network owner has 118 registered to. The ISP may thus leverage such infrastructure and 119 provide the homenet a specific domain name designated as per 120 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] a Homenet Registered 121 Domain. Similarly to the reverse zone, the ISP is well aware of who 122 owns that domain name and may become a natural candidate for hosting 123 the Homenet Zone - that is the Distribution Master (DM) and the 124 Public Authoritative Servers. 126 This document describes DHCPv6 options that enables the ISP to 127 provide the necessary parameters to the HNA, to proceed. 128 More specifically, the ISP provides the Registered Homenet Domain, 129 necessary information on the DM and the RDM so the HNA can manage and 130 upload the Public Homenet Zone and the Reverse Public Homenet Zone as 131 described in [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. 133 The use of DHCPv6 options makes the configuration completely 134 transparent to the end user and provides a similar level of trust as 135 the one used to provide the IP prefix. The link between the HNA and 136 the DHCPv6 server may benefit from additional security for example by 137 using [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6]. 139 3. Protocol Overview 141 This section illustrates how a HNA receives the necessary information 142 via DHCPv6 options to outsource its authoritative naming service to 143 the DOI. For the sake of simplicity, and similarly to 145 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation], this section assumes 146 that the HNA and the home network DHCPv6 client are collocated on the 147 CPE. Note also that this is not mandatory and specific 148 communications between the HNA and the DHCPv6 client only are needed. 149 In addition, this section assumes the responsible entity for the 150 DHCPv6 server is able to configure the DM and RDM. In our case, this 151 means a Registered Homenet Domain can be associated to the DHCP 152 client. 154 This scenario has been chosen as it is believed to be the most 155 popular scenario. This document does not ignore scenarios where the 156 DHCP Server does not have privileged relations with the DM or RDM. 157 These cases are discussed latter in Appendix A. Such scenarios do 158 not necessarily require configuration for the end user and can also 159 be zero-config. 161 The scenario considered in this section is as follows: 163 1. The HNA is willing to outsource the Public Homenet Zone or 164 Homenet Reverse Zone and configures its DHCP Client to include in 165 its Option Request Option (ORO) the Registered Homenet Domain 166 Option (OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN), the Distribution Master Option 167 (OPTION_DIST_MASTER) and the Reverse Distribution Master Option 168 (OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER) option codes. 170 2. The DHCP Server responds to the HNA with the requested DHCPv6 171 options based on the identified homenet. The DHCP Client 172 transmits the information to the HNA. 174 3. The HNA is able to get authenticated by the DM and the RDM. The 175 HNA builds the Homenet Zone ( resp. the Homenet Reverse Zone) and 176 proceed as described in 177 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. The DHCPv6 178 options provide the necessary and non optional parameters 179 described in section 14 of 180 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. The HNA MAY set 181 complement the configurations with additional parameters. 182 Section 14 of [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] 183 describes such parameters that MAY take a default value. 185 4. Payload Description 187 This section details the payload of the DHCPv6 options. 189 4.1. Registered Homenet Domain Option 191 The Registered Domain Option (OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN) indicates the 192 FQDN associated to the home network. 194 0 1 2 3 195 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 1 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN | option-len | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 | | 200 / Registered Homenet Domain / 201 | | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 Figure 1: Registered Domain Option 206 o option-code (16 bits): OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN, the option code 207 for the Registered Homenet Domain (TBD2). 209 o option-len (16 bits): length in octets of the option-data field as 210 described in [RFC8415]. 212 o Registered Homenet Domain (variable): the FQDN registered for the 213 homenet encoded as described in section 10 of [RFC8415]. 215 4.2. Distribution Master Option 217 The Distributed Master Option (OPTION_DIST_MASTER) provides the HNA 218 to FQDN of the DM as well as the transport protocol for the 219 transaction between the HNA and the DM. 221 0 1 2 3 222 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 1 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 | OPTION_DIST_MASTER | option-len | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 226 | Supported Transport | | 227 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 228 | | 229 / Distribution Master FQDN / 230 | | 231 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 233 Figure 2: Distribution Master Option 235 o option-code (16 bits): OPTION_DIST_MASTER, the option code for the 236 DM Option (TBD3). 238 o option-len (16 bits): length in octets of the option-data field as 239 described in [RFC8415]. 241 o Supported Transport (16 bits): defines the supported transport by 242 the DM. Each bit represents a supported transport, and a DM MAY 243 indicate the support of multiple modes. The bit for DNS over TLS 244 [RFC7858] MUST be set. 246 o Distribution Master FQDN (variable): the FQDN of the DM encoded as 247 described in section 10 of [RFC8415]. 249 4.2.1. Supported Transport 251 The Supported Transport filed of the DHCPv6 option indicates the 252 supported transport protocol. Each bit represents a specific 253 transport mechanism. The bit sets to 1 indicates the associated 254 transport protocol is supported. The corresponding bits are assigned 255 as described in Figure 3. 257 Bit | Transport Protocol | Reference 258 ----+--------------------+----------- 259 0 | DNS | This-RFC 260 1 | DNS over TLS | This-RFC 261 2 | DNS over HTTPS | This-RFC 262 3 | DNS over QUIC | This-RFC 263 4-15| unallocated | This-RFC 265 Figure 3: Supported Transport 267 o DNS: indicates the support of DNS over port 53 as described in 268 [RFC1035]. 270 o DNS over TLS: indicates the support of DNS over TLS as described 271 in [RFC7858]. 273 o DNS over HTTPS: indicates the support of DNS over HTTPS as 274 described in [RFC8484]. 276 o DNS over QUIC: indicates the support of DNS over QUIC as defined 277 in [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic]. 279 4.3. Reverse Distribution Master Server Option 281 The Reverse Distribution Master Server Option 282 (OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER) provides the HNA to FQDN of the DM as 283 well as the transport protocol for the transaction between the HNA 284 and the DM. 286 0 1 2 3 287 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 1 288 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 289 | OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER | option-len | 290 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 291 | Supported Transport | | 292 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 293 | | 294 / Reverse Distribution Master FQDN / 295 | | 296 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 298 Figure 4: Reverse Distribution Master Option 300 o option-code (16 bits): OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER, the option code 301 for the Reverse Distribution Master Option (TBD4). 303 o option-len (16 bits): length in octets of the option-data field as 304 described in [RFC8415]. 306 o Supported Transport (16 bits): defines the supported transport by 307 the DM. Each bit represents a supported transport, and a DM MAY 308 indicate the support of multiple modes. The bit for DoT MUST be 309 set. 311 o Reverse Distribution Master FQDN (variable): the FQDN of the RDM 312 encoded as described in section 10 of [RFC8415]. 314 5. DHCP Behavior 316 5.1. DHCPv6 Server Behavior 318 Sections 17.2.2 and 18.2 of [RFC8415] govern server operation in 319 regards to option assignment. As a convenience to the reader, we 320 mention here that the server will send option foo only if configured 321 with specific values for foo and if the client requested it. In 322 particular, when configured the DHCP Server sends the Registered 323 Homenet Domain Option, Distribution Master Option, the Reverse 324 Distribution Master Option when requested by the DHCPv6 client by 325 including necessary option codes in its ORO. 327 5.2. DHCPv6 Client Behavior 329 The DHCPv6 client sends a ORO with the necessary option codes: 330 Registered Homenet Domain Option, Distribution Master Option, the 331 Reverse Distribution Master Option. 333 Upon receiving a DHCP option described in this document in the Reply 334 message, the HNA SHOULD proceed as described in 335 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. 337 5.3. DHCPv6 Relay Agent Behavior 339 There are no additional requirements for the DHCP Relay agents. 341 6. IANA Considerations 343 IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Option Codes in 344 the registry maintained in: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6- 345 parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml#dhcpv6-parameters-2. 347 Value Description Client ORO Singleton Option 348 TBD1 OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN Yes Yes 349 TBD2 OPTION_DIST_MASTER Yes Yes 350 TBD3 OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER Yes Yes 352 IANA is requested to maintain a new number space of Supported 353 Transport parameter in the Distributed Master Option 354 (OPTION_DIST_MASTER) or the Reverse Distribution Master Server Option 355 (OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MASTER). The different parameters are defined 356 in Figure 3 in Section 4.2.1. Future code points 4 - 8 are assigned 357 under the IETF Review, other code points are assigned under 358 Specification Required as per [RFC8126]. 360 7. Security Considerations" 362 8. Acknowledgments 364 We would like to thank Marcin Siodelski and Bernie Volz for their 365 comments on the design of the DHCPv6 options. We would also like to 366 thank Mark Andrews, Andrew Sullivan and Lorenzo Colliti for their 367 remarks on the architecture design. The designed solution has been 368 largely been inspired by Mark Andrews's document 369 [I-D.andrews-dnsop-pd-reverse] as well as discussions with Mark. We 370 also thank Ray Hunter for its reviews, its comments and for 371 suggesting an appropriated terminology. 373 9. References 375 9.1. Normative References 377 [I-D.ietf-dprive-dnsoquic] 378 Huitema, C., Mankin, A., and S. Dickinson, "Specification 379 of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections", draft-ietf- 380 dprive-dnsoquic-01 (work in progress), October 2020. 382 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 383 STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, 384 . 386 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 387 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 388 November 1987, . 390 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 391 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 392 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 393 . 395 [RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS 396 Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997, 397 . 399 [RFC6672] Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the 400 DNS", RFC 6672, DOI 10.17487/RFC6672, June 2012, 401 . 403 [RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D., 404 and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport 405 Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May 406 2016, . 408 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 409 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 410 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 411 . 413 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 414 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 415 May 2017, . 417 [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., 418 Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, 419 "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", 420 RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, 421 . 423 [RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS 424 (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018, 425 . 427 9.2. Informative References 429 [I-D.andrews-dnsop-pd-reverse] 430 Andrews, M., "Automated Delegation of IP6.ARPA reverse 431 zones with Prefix Delegation", draft-andrews-dnsop-pd- 432 reverse-02 (work in progress), November 2013. 434 [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6] 435 Li, L., Jiang, S., Cui, Y., Jinmei, T., Lemon, T., and D. 436 Zhang, "Secure DHCPv6", draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 (work 437 in progress), February 2017. 439 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] 440 Migault, D., Weber, R., Richardson, M., Hunter, R., 441 Griffiths, C., and W. Cloetens, "Simple Provisioning of 442 Public Names for Residential Networks", draft-ietf- 443 homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-12 (work in progress), 444 November 2020. 446 [I-D.sury-dnsext-cname-dname] 447 Sury, O., "CNAME+DNAME Name Redirection", draft-sury- 448 dnsext-cname-dname-00 (work in progress), April 2010. 450 Appendix A. Scenarios and impact on the End User 452 This section details various scenarios and discuss their impact on 453 the end user. This section is not normative and limits the 454 description of a limited scope of scenarios that are assumed to be 455 representative. Many other scenarios may be derived from these. 457 Appendix B. Base Scenario 459 The base scenario is the one described in Section 3 in which an ISP 460 manages the DHCP Server, the DM and RDM. 462 The end user subscribes to the ISP (foo), and at subscription time 463 registers for example.foo as its Registered Homenet Domain 464 example.foo. 466 In this scenario, the DHCP Server, DM and RDM are managed by the ISP 467 so the DHCP Server and as such can provide authentication credentials 468 of the HNA to enable secure authenticated transaction with the DM and 469 the Reverse DM. 471 The main advantage of this scenario is that the naming architecture 472 is configured automatically and transparently for the end user. The 473 drawbacks are that the end user uses a Registered Homenet Domain 474 managed by the ISP and that it relies on the ISP naming 475 infrastructure. 477 B.1. Third Party Registered Homenet Domain 479 This section considers the case when the end user wants its home 480 network to use example.com not managed by her ISP (foo) as a 481 Registered Homenet Domain. 482 This section still consider the ISP manages the home network and 483 still provides example.foo as a Registered Homenet Domain. 485 When the end user buys the domain name example.com, it may request to 486 redirect the name example.com to example.foo using static redirection 487 with CNAME [RFC2181], [RFC1034], DNAME [RFC6672] or CNAME+DNAME 488 [I-D.sury-dnsext-cname-dname]. 490 This configuration is performed once when the domain name example.com 491 is registered. The only information the end user needs to know is 492 the domain name assigned by the ISP. Once this configuration is done 493 no additional configuration is needed anymore. More specifically, 494 the HNA may be changed, the zone can be updated as in Appendix B 495 without any additional configuration from the end user. 497 The main advantage of this scenario is that the end user benefits 498 from the Zero Configuration of the Base Scenario Appendix B. Then, 499 the end user is able to register for its home network an unlimited 500 number of domain names provided by an unlimited number of different 501 third party providers. 502 The drawback of this scenario may be that the end user still rely on 503 the ISP naming infrastructure. Note that the only case this may be 504 inconvenient is when the DNS Servers provided by the ISPs results in 505 high latency. 507 B.2. Third Party DNS Infrastructure 509 This scenario considers that the end user uses example.com as a 510 Registered Homenet Domain, and does not want to rely on the 511 authoritative servers provided by the ISP. 513 In this section we limit the outsourcing to the DM and Public 514 Authoritative Server(s) to a third party. The Reverse Public 515 Authoritative Server(s) and the RDM remain managed by the ISP as the 516 IP prefix is managed by the ISP. 518 Outsourcing to a third party DM can be performed in the following 519 ways: 521 1. Updating the DHCP Server Information. One can imagine a GUI 522 interface that enables the end user to modify its profile 523 parameters. Again, this configuration update is done once-for- 524 ever. 526 2. Upload the configuration of the DM to the HNA. In some cases, 527 the provider of the CPE hosting the HNA may be the registrar and 528 provide the CPE already configured. In other cases, the CPE may 529 request the end user to log into the registrar to validate the 530 ownership of the Registered Homenet Domain and agree on the 531 necessary credentials to secure the communication between the HNA 532 and the DM. As described in 533 [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation], such settings 534 could be performed in an almost automatic way as to limit the 535 necessary interactions with the end user. 537 B.3. Multiple ISPs 539 This scenario considers a HNA connected to multiple ISPs. 541 Suppose the HNA has been configured each of its interfaces 542 independently with each ISPS as described in Appendix B. Each ISP 543 provides a different Registered Homenet Domain. 545 The protocol and DHCPv6 options described in this document are fully 546 compatible with a HNA connected to multiple ISPs with multiple 547 Registered Homenet Domains. However, the HNA should be able to 548 handle different Registered Homenet Domains. This is an 549 implementation issue which is outside the scope of the current 550 document. 552 If a HNA is not able to handle multiple Registered Homenet Domains, 553 the HNA may remain connected to multiple ISP with a single Registered 554 Homenet Domain. In this case, one entity is chosen to host the 555 Registered Homenet Domain. This entity may be one of the ISP or a 556 third party. Note that having multiple ISPs can be motivated for 557 bandwidth aggregation, or connectivity fail-over. In the case of 558 connectivity fail-over, the fail-over concerns the access network and 559 a failure of the access network may not impact the core network where 560 the DM Server and Public Authoritative Primaries are hosted. In that 561 sense, choosing one of the ISP even in a scenario of multiple ISPs 562 may make sense. However, for sake of simplicity, this scenario 563 assumes that a third party has been chosen to host the Registered 564 Homenet Domain. Configuration is performed as described in 565 Appendix B.1 and Appendix B.2. 567 With the configuration described in Appendix B.1, the HNA is expect 568 to be able to handle multiple Homenet Registered Domain, as the third 569 party redirect to one of the ISPs Servers. With the configuration 570 described in Appendix B.2, DNS zone are hosted and maintained by the 571 third party. A single DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone is built and maintained 572 by the HNA. This latter configuration is likely to match most HNA 573 implementations. 575 The protocol and DHCPv6 options described in this document are fully 576 compatible with a HNA connected to multiple ISPs. To configure or 577 not and how to configure the HNA depends on the HNA facilities. 578 Appendix B and Appendix B.1 require the HNA to handle multiple 579 Registered Homenet Domain, whereas Appendix B.2 does not have such 580 requirement. 582 Authors' Addresses 584 Daniel Migault 585 Ericsson 586 8275 Trans Canada Route 587 Saint Laurent, QC 4S 0B6 588 Canada 590 EMail: daniel.migault@ericsson.com 591 Ralf Weber 592 Akamai 594 EMail: ralf.weber@akamai.com 596 Tomek Mrugalski 597 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. 598 950 Charter Street 599 Redwood City 94063 600 US 602 EMail: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com 604 Chris Griffiths 606 EMail: cgriffiths@gmail.com 608 Wouter Cloetens 609 Deutsche Telekom 611 EMail: wouter.cloetens@external.telekom.de