Concluded WG Broadband Home Gateway (homegate)
Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.
| WG | Name | Broadband Home Gateway | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acronym | homegate | ||
| Area | Transport Area (tsv) | ||
| State | Concluded | ||
| Charter | charter-ietf-homegate-01 Approved | ||
| Document dependencies | |||
| Personnel | Chairs | David R. Oran, Jason Livingood, Ray Bellis |
Final Charter for Working Group
Access to broadband Internet services use networking technology of one
form or another within the home, small office/home office (SOHO) or
small to medium business (SMB) as the demarcation between the local
network and the Internet. These technologies almost always involve a
single entity ? which is not purely a router ? called a "home gateway".
This entity connects a local user or users to various LAN services,
providing some basic level of security. The majority of Internet users
employ home gateways for this purpose.
However, many serious, long?term problems face users of home gateways
today. At the root of many of these problems is the fact that device
manufacturers, and/or the organizations that specify requirements for
such devices, are not certain which IETF standards and best current
practices should be supported, and when/why that support is needed. As a
result of this, millions of devices are being deployed every year, which
do not work with important IETF protocols, standards, and best practices
that are central to the future of the Internet.
One of the problems in this area appears to be that home gateway vendors
are unclear which RFCs are important, or current, and why they are
important and in what context they matter. Thus, the primary objective
of the group is document a baseline of ?core? RFCs/BCPs which must be
supported, followed by some ?advanced? RFCs/BCPs which are to be
considered optional. The context and reasoning behind each document
which is included should be summarized as well, in order to improve
comprehension of why a given document has been included. These things
will help improve compatibilities with and capabilities for use of the
Internet of today. This will include a focus in areas such as DNS proxy
behavior, congestion mechanisms support, and security.
A secondary problem is compatibility with and capability for the use of
the Internet of tomorrow. New security needs related to DNS are
motivating a move to DNSSEC. However, many if not most home gateways
cannot handle DNSSEC, which is expected to be a major problem that could
significantly impede the deployment of DNSSEC globally. Support for IPv6
is also lacking to a great degree and there is no clear understanding of
how such devices should support IPv6.
This working group will not develop new or extend existing Internet
protocols. Should any such need develop, the chairs will refer the work
to another working group that is chartered to focus on the relevant problem.