Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template
Network Working Group M. Richardson
Internet-Draft SSW
Intended status: Informational May 3, 2016
Expires: November 4, 2016
ROLL Applicability Statement Template
draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-09
Abstract
This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing
over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not
for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.
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 November 4, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Relationship to other documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication
paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5
2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5
2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5
2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . 5
2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 6
4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 8
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 8
7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This document describes a series of questions which should be
answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft.
The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use
the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability
statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum.
1.1. Relationship to other documents
EDITORIAL: The following should appear in all applicability
statements:
ROLL has specified a set of routing protocols for Lossy and Low-
resource Networks (LLN) [RFC6550]. This applicability text describes
a subset of these protocols and the conditions which make the subset
the correct choice. The text recommends and motivates the
accompanying parameter value ranges. Multiple applicability domains
are recognized including: Building and Home, and Advanced Metering
Infrastructure. The applicability domains distinguish themselves in
the way they are operated, their performance requirements, and the
most probable network structures. Each applicability statement
identifies the distinguishing properties according to a common set of
subjects described in as many sections.
A common set of security threats are described in [RFC7416]. The
applicability statements complement the security threats document by
describing preferred security settings and solutions within the
applicability statement conditions. This applicability statements
may recommend more light weight security solutions and specify the
conditions under which these solutions are appropriate.
1.2. Requirements Language
(RFC2119 reference)
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
1.3. Terminology
A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A
reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any
terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here.
1.4. Required Reading
References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry
group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical,
should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group
participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues)
1.5. Out of scope requirements
This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations
where things are not in scope for this document.
(For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered
urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks,
and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three
or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what
this document covers)
2. Deployment Scenario
2.1. Network Topologies
describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a
single utility would employ.
2.2. Traffic Characteristics
Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is
initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.)
are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about
authentication and authorization in those protocols.
2.2.1. General
2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm
2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm
2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm
2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast
2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm
2.3. Layer-2 applicability.
Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if
there are options, they should be listed generally here, and
specifically in section 4.2.
3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements
This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in
this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are
expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is
understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be
explained, perhaps with images references from other publications.
This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a
simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to
construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to
validate an implementation.
4. RPL Profile
This section should list the various features of RPL plus other
layers of the LLN, and how they will be used.
4.1. RPL Features
4.1.1. RPL Instances
4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode
4.1.3. DAO Policy
4.1.4. Path Metrics
4.1.5. Objective Function
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
4.1.6. DODAG Repair
4.1.7. Multicast
4.1.8. Security
4.1.9. P2P communications
4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration
4.2. Layer-2 features
4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2
this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology
that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally
not acceptable.
4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2
4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed.
4.2.4. MLE and other things
4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges
4.3.1. Trickle Parameters
This section is intended to document the specific value (or ranges)
appropriate for this kind of deployment. This includes trickle
specific parameters such as those of RFC6550, section 8.3.1: Imin
(DIOInternvalMin), Imax (DIOIntrevalDoublings), and k
(DIORedundancyConstant). While it is not necessary to hard code
these parameters into RPL nodes, as they are announced as part of the
DIO message, it is important for researchers who are trying to
validate the convergence properties of the resulting deployment to
understand what values have been selected.
4.3.2. Other Parameters
There are additional values which are present in the DODAG
Configuration option. The purpose of this section is to: a) document
what values are configured, b) if a default value is used, if it is
appropriate for this deployment.
These values include: MaxRankIncrease, MinHopRankIncrease, the
Objective Code Point to use, Default Lifetime, Lifetime Units...
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
In addition, the kinds of metrics which will be used (RFC6551) needs
to be specified. If Objective Function 0 (RFC6552) is used, then it
specifies a number of values, but also needs definitions of the
stretch_of_rank, and rank_factor.
If MRHOF (RFC6719) is used, then section 5 of this document requires
selection of: MAX_LINK_METRIC, MAX_PATH_COST,
PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, PARENT_SET_SIZE, and ALLOW_FLOATING_ROOT.
5. MPL Profile
This section should list the various features of MPL. In considering
the parameters, a number of questions come up:
1) What are the maximum and minimum 1-hop MPL router neighbours of
all the MPL routers?
2) what is the arrival rate of new packets that need repetition in
a MPL router
3) Is there a deadline associated with the packets
4) What is the shortest number of hops of the longest path between
sources and destinations
5) What are the values of the MAC: back-off values, retries,
buffer size.
6) What is the background load of other non MPL applications.
7) arrival probability of 1-hop packets
As the corresponding design space is incredibly large, probably only
a limited subset of the design space is viable.
Here is an example scenario:
o 5 neighbours
o once every 100 ms (rate at sources is once every 300-500 ms)
o yes, 200 ms
o 5 hops, with mostly 1 hop
o no buffer, retry 1, back-off 2
o absent
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
o 100-80%
leading to k=3-5, Imin =30-70 ms, repeat = 2, Imax n/a.
It is crital operational boundary conditions together with
appropriate MPL parameter values are published in this applicability
statements. All applicability statements together may give a good
hint which MPL parameters and boundary conditions to choose.
5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges
5.1.1. Trickle Parameters
5.1.1.1. Imin
5.1.1.2. Imax
5.1.2. Other Parameters
5.1.2.1. Hot Limit
6. Manageability Considerations
7. Security Considerations
7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment
(This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors,
initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in
a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like
http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/
CullenJennings.pdf)
7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment
(This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the
dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes
removed if they are compromised)
7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses
(When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may
have different security needs.)
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
8. Other Related Protocols
9. IANA Considerations
10. Acknowledgements
This document was created from a number source applicatbility
templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, draft-
phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt.
The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security
Directorate.
A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including
the MPL considerations/calculations
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
11.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft roll-applicatbility May 2016
Author's Address
Michael C. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
470 Dawson Avenue
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7
CA
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/
Richardson Expires November 4, 2016 [Page 10]
