Internet DRAFT - draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags
draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags
ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J.W. Hui
Expires: March 11, 2014 Cisco
September 09, 2013
LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery
draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02
Abstract
In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at
every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs.
Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an
802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst
case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments
at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. If a single one of those fragments is
lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further
contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial
packet loss. This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward and
recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops
between 6LoWPAN endpoints.
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 March 11, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. New Dispatch types and headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Recoverable Fragment Dispatch type and Header . . . . . . 7
6.2. Fragment Acknowledgement Dispatch type and Header . . . . 7
7. Fragments Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Forwarding Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Upon the first fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Upon the next fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. Upon the fragment acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
In most Low Power and Lossy Network (LLN) applications, the bulk of
the traffic consists of small chunks of data (in the order few bytes
to a few tens of bytes) at a time. Given that an 802.15.4 frame can
carry 74 bytes or more in all cases, fragmentation is usually not
required. However, and though this happens only occasionally, a
number of mission critical applications do require the capability to
transfer larger chunks of data, for instance to support a firmware
upgrades of the LLN nodes or an extraction of logs from LLN nodes.
In the former case, the large chunk of data is transferred to the LLN
node, whereas in the latter, the large chunk flows away from the LLN
node. In both cases, the size can be on the order of 10K bytes or
more and an end-to-end reliable transport is required.
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
Mechanisms such as TCP or application-layer segmentation will be used
to support end-to-end reliable transport. One option to support bulk
data transfer over a frame-size-constrained LLN is to set the Maximum
Segment Size to fit within the link maximum frame size. Doing so,
however, can add significant header overhead to each 802.15.4 frame.
This causes the end-to-end transport to be intimately aware of the
delivery properties of the underlaying LLN, which is a layer
violation.
An alternative mechanism combines the use of 6LoWPAN fragmentation in
addition to transport or application-layer segmentation. Increasing
the Maximum Segment Size reduces header overhead by the end-to-end
transport protocol. It also encourages the transport protocol to
reduce the number of outstanding datagrams, ideally to a single
datagram, thus reducing the need to support out-of-order delivery
common to LLNs.
[RFC4944] defines a datagram fragmentation mechanism for LLNs.
However, because [RFC4944] does not define a mechanism for recovering
fragments that are lost, datagram forwarding fails if even one
fragment is not delivered properly to the next IP hop. End-to-end
transport mechanisms will require retransmission of all fragments,
wasting resources in an already resource-constrained network.
Past experience with fragmentation has shown that missassociated or
lost fragments can lead to poor network behavior and, eventually,
trouble at application layer. The reader is encouraged to read
[RFC4963] and follow the references for more information. That
experience led to the definition of the Path MTU discovery [RFC1191]
protocol that limits fragmentation over the Internet.
For one-hop communications, a number of media propose a local
acknowledgement mechanism that is enough to protect the fragments.
In a multihop environment, an end-to-end fragment recovery mechanism
might be a good complement to a hop-by-hop MAC level recovery. This
draft introduces a simple protocol to recover individual fragments
between 6LoWPAN endpoints. Specifically in the case of UDP, valuable
additional information can be found in UDP Usage Guidelines for
Application Designers [RFC5405].
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
that are discussed in "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area
Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and
Goals" [RFC4919] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks" [RFC4944].
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
Error Recovery Procedure.
The LLN nodes in charge of generating or expanding a 6LoWPAN
header from/to a full IPv6 packet. The 6LoWPAN endpoints are the
points where fragmentation and reassembly take place.
3. Rationale
There are a number of uses for large packets in Wireless Sensor
Networks. Such usages may not be the most typical or represent the
largest amount of traffic over the LLN; however, the associated
functionality can be critical enough to justify extra care for
ensuring effective transport of large packets across the LLN.
The list of those usages includes:
Towards the LLN node:
Packages of Commands: A number of commands or a full configuration
can by packaged as a single message to ensure consistency and
enable atomic execution or complete roll back. Until such
commands are fully received and interpreted, the intended
operation will not take effect.
Firmware update: For example, a new version of the LLN node
software is downloaded from a system manager over unicast or
multicast services. Such a reflashing operation typically
involves updating a large number of similar LLN nodes over a
relatively short period of time.
From the LLN node:
Waveform captures: A number of consecutive samples are measured at
a high rate for a short time and then transferred from a sensor
to a gateway or an edge server as a single large report.
Data logs: LLN nodes may generate large logs of sampled data for
later extraction. LLN nodes may also generate system logs to
assist in diagnosing problems on the node or network.
Large data packets: Rich data types might require more than one
fragment.
Uncontrolled firmware download or waveform upload can easily result
in a massive increase of the traffic and saturate the network.
When a fragment is lost in transmission, all fragments are resent,
further contributing to the congestion that caused the initial loss,
and potentially leading to congestion collapse.
This saturation may lead to excessive radio interference, or random
early discard (leaky bucket) in relaying nodes. Additional queuing
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
and memory congestion may result while waiting for a low power next
hop to emerge from its sleeping state.
To demonstrate the severity of the problem, consider a fairly
reliable 802.15.4 frame delivery rate of 99.9% over a single 802.15.4
hop. The expected delivery rate of a 5-fragment datagram would be
about 99.5% over a single 802.15.4 hop. However, the expected
delivery rate would drop to 95.1% over 10 hops, a reasonable network
diameter for LLN applications. The expected delivery rate for a
1280-byte datagram is 98.4% over a single hop and 85.2% over 10 hops.
Considering that [RFC4944] defines an MTU is 1280 bytes and that in
most incarnations (but 802.15.4G) a 802.15.4 frame can limit the MAC
payload to as few as 74 bytes, a packet might be fragmented into at
least 18 fragments at the 6LoWPAN shim layer. Taking into account
the worst-case header overhead for 6LoWPAN Fragmentation and Mesh
Addressing headers will increase the number of required fragments to
around 32. This level of fragmentation is much higher than that
traditionally experienced over the Internet with IPv4 fragments. At
the same time, the use of radios increases the probability of
transmission loss and Mesh-Under techniques compound that risk over
multiple hops.
4. Requirements
This paper proposes a method to recover individual fragments between
LLN endpoints. The method is designed to fit the following
requirements of a LLN (with or without a Mesh-Under routing
protocol):
The recovery mechanism must support highly fragmented packets,
with a maximum of 32 fragments per packet.
Because the radio is half duplex, and because of silent time spent
in the various medium access mechanisms, an acknowledgment
consumes roughly as many resources as data fragment.
The recovery mechanism should be able to acknowledge multiple
fragments in a single message and not require an acknowledgement
at all if fragments are already protected at a lower layer.
The recovery mechanism must succeed or give up within the time
boundary imposed by the recovery process of the Upper Layer
Protocols.
A Mesh-Under load balancing mechanism such as the ISA100 Data Link
Layer can introduce out-of-sequence packets.
The recovery mechanism must account for packets that appear lost
but are actually only delayed over a different path.
The aggregation of multiple concurrent flows may lead to the
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
saturation of the radio network and congestion collapse.
The recovery mechanism should provide means for controlling the
number of fragments in transit over the LLN.
5. Overview
Considering that a multi-hop LLN can be a very sensitive environment
due to the limited queuing capabilities of a large population of its
nodes, this draft recommends a simple and conservative approach to
congestion control, based on TCP congestion avoidance.
Congestion on the forward path is assumed in case of packet loss, and
packet loss is assumed upon time out.
Congestion on the forward path can also be indicated by an Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) mechanism. Though whether and how ECN
[RFC3168] is carried out over the LoWPAN is out of scope, this draft
provides a way for the destination endpoint to echo an ECN indication
back to the source endpoint in an acknowledgment message as
represented in Figure 5 in Section 6.2.
From the standpoint of a source 6LoWPAN endpoint, an outstanding
fragment is a fragment that was sent but for which no explicit
acknowledgment was received yet. This means that the fragment might
be on the way, received but not yet acknowledged, or the
acknowledgment might be on the way back. It is also possible that
either the fragment or the acknowledgment was lost on the way.
Because a meshed LLN might deliver frames out of order, it is
virtually impossible to differentiate these situations. In other
words, from the sender standpoint, all outstanding fragments might
still be in the network and contribute to its congestion. There is
an assumption, though, that after a certain amount of time, a frame
is either received or lost, so it is not causing congestion anymore.
This amount of time can be estimated based on the round trip delay
between the 6LoWPAN endpoints. The method detailed in [RFC2988] is
recommended for that computation.
The reader is encouraged to read through "Congestion Control
Principles" [RFC2914]. Additionally [RFC2309] and [RFC2581] provide
deeper information on why this mechanism is needed and how TCP
handles Congestion Control. Basically, the goal here is to manage
the amount of fragments present in the network; this is achieved by
to reducing the number of outstanding fragments over a congested path
by throttling the sources.
Section 7 describes how the sender decides how many fragments are
(re)sent before an acknowledgment is required, and how the sender
adapts that number to the network conditions.
6. New Dispatch types and headers
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
This specification extends "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE
802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944] with 4 new dispatch types, for
Recoverable Fragments (RFRAG) headers with or without Acknowledgment
Request, and for the Acknowledgment back, with or without ECN Echo.
Pattern Header Type
+------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 11 101000 | RFRAG - Recoverable Fragment |
| 11 101001 | RFRAG-AR - RFRAG with Ack Request |
| 11 101010 | RFRAG-ACK - RFRAG Acknowledgment |
| 11 101011 | RFRAG-AEC - RFRAG Ack with ECN Echo |
+------------+-----------------------------------------------+
In the following sections, the semantics of "datagram_tag,"
"datagram_offset" and "datagram_size" and the reassembly process are
changed from [RFC4944] Section 5.3. "Fragmentation Type and
Header." The size and offset are expressed on the compressed packet
per [RFC6282] as opposed to the uncompressed - native packet - form.
6.1. Recoverable Fragment Dispatch type and Header
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 0 1 0 0 X|datagram_offset| datagram_tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sequence | datagram_size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
X set == Ack Requested
When set, the sender requires an Acknowledgment from the receiver
The sequence number of the fragment. Fragments are numbered
[0..N] where N is in [0..31].
6.2. Fragment Acknowledgement Dispatch type and Header
The specification also defines a 4-octet acknowledgement bitmap that
is used to carry selective acknowlegements for the received
fragments. A given offset in the bitmap maps one to one with a given
sequence number.
The offset of the bit in the bitmap indicates which fragment is
acknowledged as follows:
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acknowledgment Bitmap |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^
| | bitmap indicating whether:
| +--- Fragment with sequence 10 was received
+----------------------- Fragment with sequence 00 was received
So in the example below Figure 4 it appears that all fragments from
sequence 0 to 20 were received but for sequence 1, 2 and 16 that were
either lost or are still in the network over a slower path.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0|0|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The acknowledgement bitmap is carried in a Fragment Acknowledgement
as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Y| datagram_tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) signalling
When set, the sender indicates that at least one of the
acknowledged fragments was received with an Explicit Congestion
Notification, indicating that the path followed by the fragments
is subject to congestion.
An acknowledgement bitmap, whereby but at offset x indicates that
fragment x was received.
7. Fragments Recovery
The Recoverable Fragments header RFRAG and RFRAG-AR deprecate the
original fragment headers from [RFC4944] and replace them in the
fragmented packets. The Fragment Acknowledgement RFRAG-ACK is
introduced as a standalone header in message that is sent back to the
fragment source endpoint as known by its MAC address. This assumes
that the source MAC address in the fragment (is any) and datagram_tag
are enough information to send the Fragment Acknowledgement back to
the source fragmentation endpoint.
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
The 6LoWPAN endpoint that fragments the packets at 6LoWPAN level (the
sender) controls the Fragment Acknowledgements. If may do that at
any fragment to implement its own policy or perform congestion
control which is out of scope for this document. When the sender of
the fragment knows that an underlying mechanism protects the
Fragments already it MAY refrain from using the Acknowledgement
mechanism, and never set the Ack Requested bit. The 6LoWPAN endpoint
that recomposes the packets at 6LoWPAN level (the receiver) MUST
acknowledge the fragments it has received when asked to, and MAY
slightly defer that acknowledgement.
The sender transfers a controlled number of fragments and MAY flag
the last fragment of a series with an acknowledgment request. The
received MUST acknowledge a fragment with the acknowledgment request
bit set. If any fragment immediately preceding an acknowledgment
request is still missing, the receiver MAY intentionally delay its
acknowledgment to allow in-transit fragments to arrive. delaying the
acknowledgement might defeat the round trip delay computation so it
should be configurable and not enabled by default.
The receiver interacts with the sender using an Acknowledgment
message with a bitmap that indicates which fragments were actually
received. The bitmap is a 32bit SWORD, which accommodates up to 32
fragments and is sufficient for the 6LoWPAN MTU. For all n in
[0..31], bit n is set to 1 in the bitmap to indicate that fragment
with sequence n was received, otherwise the bit is set to 0. All
zeroes is a NULL bitmap that indicates that the fragmentation process
was cancelled by the receiver for that datagram.
The receiver MAY issue unsolicited acknowledgments. An unsolicited
acknowledgment enables the sender endpoint to resume sending if it
had reached its maximum number of outstanding fragments or indicate
that the receiver has cancelled the process of an individual
datagram. Note that acknowledgments might consume precious resources
so the use of unsolicited acknowledgments should be configurable and
not enabled by default.
The sender arms a retry timer to cover the fragment that carries the
Acknowledgment request. Upon time out, the sender assumes that all
the fragments on the way are received or lost. The process must have
completed within an acceptable time that is within the boundaries of
upper layer retries. The method detailed in [RFC2988] is recommended
for the computation of the retry timer. It is expected that the
upper layer retries obey the same or friendly rules in which case a
single round of fragment recovery should fit within the upper layer
recovery timers.
Fragments are sent in a round robin fashion: the sender sends all the
fragments for a first time before it retries any lost fragment; lost
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
fragments are retried in sequence, oldest first. This mechanism
enables the receiver to acknowledge fragments that were delayed in
the network before they are actually retried.
When the sender decides that a packet should be dropped and the
fragmentation process canceled, it sends a pseudo fragment with the
datagram_offset, sequence and datagram_size all set to zero, and no
data. Upon reception of this message, the receiver should clean up
all resources for the packet associated to the datagram_tag. If an
acknowledgement is requested, the receiver responds with a NULL
bitmap.
The receiver might need to cancel the process of a fragmented packet
for internal reasons, for instance if it is out of recomposition
buffers, or considers that this packet is already fully recomposed
and passed to the upper layer. In that case, the receiver SHOULD
indicate so to the sender with a NULL bitmap. Upon an
acknowledgement with a NULL bitmap, the sender MUST drop the
datagram.
8. Forwarding Fragments
This specification enables intermediate routers to forward fragments
with no intermediate reconstruction of the entire packet. Upon the
first fragment, the routers lay an label along the path that is
followed by that fragment (that is IP routed), and all further
fragments are label switched along that path. As a consequence,
alternate routes not possible for individual fragments. The datagram
tag is used to carry the label, that is swapped at each hop.
8.1. Upon the first fragment
In route over the L2 source changes at each hop. The label that is
formed adnd placed in the datagram tag is associated to the source
MAC and only valid (and unique) for that source MAC. Say the first
fragment has:
Source IPv6 address = IP_A (maybe hops away)
Destination IPv6 address = IP_B (maybe hops away)
Source MAC = MAC_prv (prv as previous)
Datagram_tag= DT_prv
The intermediate router that forwards individual fragments does the
following:
a route lookup to get Next hop IPv6 towards IP_B, which resolves
as IP_nxt (nxt as next)
a ND resolution to get the MAC address associated to IP_nxt, which
resolves as MAC_nxt
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
Since it is a first fragment of a packet from that source MAC address
MAC_prv for that tag DT_prv, the router:
cleans up any leftover resource associated to the tupple (MAC_prv,
DT_prv)
allocates a new label for that flow, DT_nxt, from a Least Recently
Used pool or some siumilar procedure.
allocates a Label swap structure indexed by (MAC_prv, DT_prv) that
contains (MAC_nxt, DT_nxt)
allocates a Label swap structure indexed by (MAC_nxt, DT_nxt) that
contains (MAC_prv, DT_prv)
swaps the MAC info to from self to MAC_nxt
Swaps the datagram_tag to DT_nxt
At this point the router is all set and can forward the packet to
nxt.
8.2. Upon the next fragments
Upon next fragments (that are not first fragment), the router expects
to have already Label swap structure indexed by (MAC_prv, DT_prv).
The router:
lookups up the Label swap entry for (MAC_prv, DT_prv), which
resolves as (MAC_nxt, DT_nxt)
swaps the MAC info to from self to MAC_nxt;
Swaps the datagram_tag to DT_nxt
At this point the router is all set and can forward the packet to
nxt.
if the Label swap entry for (MAC_src, DT_src) is not found, the
router builds an RFRAG-ACK to indicate the error. The acknowledgment
message has the following information:
MAC info set to from self to MAC_prv as found in the fragment
Swaps the datagram_tag set to DT_prv
Bitmap of all zeroes to indicate the error
At this point the router is all set and can send the RFRAG-ACK back
ot the previous router.
8.3. Upon the fragment acknowledgements
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
Upon fragment acknowledgements next fragments (that are not first
fragment), the router expects to have already Label swap structure
indexed by (MAC_nxt, DT_nxt). The router:
lookups up the Label swap entry for (MAC_nxt, DT_nxt), which
resolves as (MAC_prv, DT_prv)
swaps the MAC info to from self to MAC_prv;
Swaps the datagram_tag to DT_prv
At this point the router is all set and can forward the RFRAG-ACK to
prv.
if the Label swap entry for (MAC_nxt, DT_nxt) is not found, it simply
drops the packet.
if the RFRAG-ACK indicates either an error or that the fragment was
fully receive, the router schedules the Label swap entries for
recycling. If the RFRAG-ACK is lost on the way back, the source may
retry the last fragments, which will result as an error RFRAG-ACK
from the first router on the way that has already cleaned up.
9. Security Considerations
The process of recovering fragments does not appear to create any
opening for new threat compared to "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
IEEE 802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944].
10. IANA Considerations
Need extensions for formats defined in "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944].
11. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Jay Werb, Christos Polyzois, Soumitri
Kolavennu and Harry Courtice for their contribution and review.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J. and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
[RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
September 2011.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.mathis-frag-harmful]
Mathis, M., "Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful",
Internet-Draft draft-mathis-frag-harmful-00, July 2004.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC2309] Braden, B., Clark, D.D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B.,
Deering, S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V.,
Minshall, G., Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan,
K.K., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J. and L. Zhang,
"Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion
Avoidance in the Internet", RFC 2309, April 1998.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
2914, September 2000.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
September 2001.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G. and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC
4919, August 2007.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M. and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November
2008.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., 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, March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery September 2013
Pascal Thubert, editor
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis, 06254
FRANCE
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Jonathan W. Hui
Cisco Systems
560 McCarthy Blvd.
MILPITAS, California 95035
USA
Email: johui@cisco.com
Thubert & Hui Expires March 11, 2014 [Page 14]
