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

Versions: (draft-hex-lwig-energy-efficient) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 8352

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 C. Gomez
Internet-Draft                      Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
Intended status: Informational                               M. Kovatsch
Expires: September 6, 2017                                    ETH Zurich
                                                                 H. Tian
                             China Academy of Telecommunication Research
                                                             Z. Cao, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           March 5, 2017


       Energy-Efficient Features of Internet of Things Protocols
                  draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-07

Abstract

   This document describes the challenges for energy-efficient protocol
   operation on constrained devices and the current practices used to
   overcome those challenges.  It summarizes the main link-layer
   techniques used for energy-efficient networking, and it highlights
   the impact of such techniques on the upper layer protocols so that
   they can together achieve an energy efficient behavior.  The document
   also provides an overview of energy-efficient mechanisms available at
   each layer of the IETF protocol suite specified for constrained node
   networks.

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 September 6, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   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
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  MAC and Radio Duty Cycling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Radio Duty Cycling techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Latency and buffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Radio interface tuning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.5.  Power save services available in example low-power radios   8
       3.5.1.  Power Save Services Provided by IEEE 802.11 . . . . .   8
       3.5.2.  Power Save Services Provided by Bluetooth LE  . . . .   9
       3.5.3.  Power Save Services in IEEE 802.15.4  . . . . . . . .  10
       3.5.4.  Power Save Services in DECT ULE . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  IP Adaptation and Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Energy efficient features in CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  Sleepy node support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  CoAP timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

1.  Introduction

   Network systems for physical world monitoring contain many battery-
   powered or energy-harvesting devices.  For example, in an
   environmental monitoring system, or a temperature and humidity
   monitoring system, there are no always-on and sustained power



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   supplies for the potentially large number of constrained devices.  In
   such deployment scenarios, it is necessary to optimize the energy
   consumption of the constrained devices.

   A large body of research efforts have been put on this "energy
   efficiency" problem.  Most of this research has focused on how to
   optimize the system's power consumption regarding a certain
   deployment scenario or how could an existing network function such as
   routing or security be more energy-efficient.  Only few efforts
   focused on energy-efficient designs for IETF protocols and
   standardized network stacks for such constrained devices
   [I-D.kovatsch-lwig-class1-coap].

   The IETF has developed a suite of Internet protocols suitable for
   such constrained devices, including IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
   Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) [RFC6282],[RFC6775],[RFC4944], the
   IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
   [RFC6550], and the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].
   This document tries to summarize the design considerations for making
   the IETF constrained protocol suite as energy-efficient as possible.
   While this document does not provide detailed and systematic
   solutions to the energy efficiency problem, it summarizes the design
   efforts and analyzes the design space of this problem.  In
   particular, it provides an overview of the techniques used by the
   lower layers to save energy and how these may impact on the upper
   layers.

   After reviewing the energy-efficient design of each layer, an overall
   conclusion is summarized.  Though the lower layer communication
   optimization is the key part of energy efficient design, the protocol
   design at the upper layers is also important to make the device
   energy-efficient.

1.1.  Conventions used in this document

   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]

1.2.  Terminology

   The terminologies used in this document can be referred to [RFC7228]
   [I-D.bormann-lwig-7228bis].








Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


2.  Overview

   The IETF has developed protocols to enable end-to-end IP
   communication between constrained nodes and fully capable nodes.
   This work has witnessed the evolution of the traditional Internet
   protocol stack to a light-weight Internet protocol stack.  As shown
   in Figure 1 below, the IETF has developed CoAP as the application
   layer and 6LoWPAN as the adaption layer to run IPv6 over IEEE
   802.15.4 and Bluetooth Low-Energy, with the support of routing by RPL
   and efficient neighbor discovery by 6LoWPAN-ND. 6LoWPAN is currently
   being adapted by the 6lo working group to support IPv6 over various
   other technologies, such as ITU-T G.9959, DECT ULE, MS/TP-BACnet and
   NFC.

   +-----+   +-----+    +-----+                +------+
   |HTTP |   | FTP |    |SNMP |                | CoAP |
   +-----+   +-----+    +-----+                +------+
         \    /           /                   /        \
        +-----+     +-----+              +-----+      +-----+
        | TCP |     | UDP |              | TCP |      | UDP |
        +-----+     +-----+       ===>   +-----+      +-----+
               \   /                          \        /
    +-----+  +------+  +-------+               +------+   +-----+
    | RTG |--| IPv6 |--|ICMP/ND|               | IPv6 |---| RPL |
    +-----+  +------+  +-------+               +------+   +-----+
                 |                                 |
             +-------+                         +-------+  +----------+
             |MAC/PHY|                         |  6Lo  |--|6LoWPAN-ND|
             +-------+                         +-------+  +----------+
                                                   |
                                               +-------+
                                               |MAC/PHY|
                                               +-------+

      Figure 1: Traditional and Light-weight Internet Protocol Stack

   There are numerous published studies reporting comprehensive
   measurements of wireless communication platforms [Powertrace].  As an
   example, below we list the energy consumption profile of the most
   common operations involved in communication on a prevalent sensor
   node platform.  The measurement was based on the Tmote Sky with
   ContikiMAC [ContikiMAC] as the radio duty cycling algorithm.  From
   this and many other measurement reports (e.g.  [AN079]), we can see
   that the energy consumption of optimized transmission and reception
   are in the same order.  For IEEE 802.15.4 and Ultra WideBand (UWB)
   links, transmitting may actually be even cheaper than receiving.  It
   also shows that broadcast and non-synchronized communication




Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   transmissions are energy costly because they need to acquire the
   medium for a long time.

   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Activity                              | Energy (uJ)   |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Broadcast reception                   |           178 |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Unicast reception                     |           222 |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Broadcast transmission                |          1790 |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Non-synchronized unicast transmission |          1090 |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Synchronized unicast transmission     |           120 |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Unicast TX to awake receiver          |            96 |
   +---------------------------------------+---------------+

       Figure 2: Power consumption of common operations involved in
              communication on the Tmote Sky with ContikiMAC

3.  MAC and Radio Duty Cycling

   In low-power wireless networks, communication and power consumption
   are intertwined.  The communication device is typically the most
   power-consuming component, but merely refraining from transmissions
   is not enough to attain a low power consumption: the radio may
   consume as much power in listen mode as when actively transmitting.
   This augments the key problem known as idle listening, whereby the
   radio of a device may be in receive mode (ready to receive any
   message), even if no message is being transmitted to that device.
   Idle listening consumes a huge amount of energy unnecessarily.  To
   reduce power consumption, the radio must be switched completely off
   -- duty-cycled -- as much as possible.  By applying duty-cycling, the
   lifetime of a device operating on a common button battery may be in
   the order of years, whereas otherwise the battery may be exhausted in
   a few days or even hours.  Duty-cycling is a technique generally
   employed by devices that use the P1 strategy [RFC7228], which need to
   be able to communicate on a relatively frequent basis.  Note that a
   more aggressive approach to save energy relies on the P0, Normally-
   off strategy, whereby devices sleep for very long periods and
   communicate infrequently, even though they spend energy in network
   reattachment procedures.

   From the perspective of MAC&RDC, all upper layer protocols, such as
   routing, RESTful communication, adaptation, and management flows, are
   all applications.  Since the duty cycling algorithm is the key to



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   energy-efficiency of the wireless medium, it synchronizes the
   transmission and/or reception request from the higher layer.

   The MAC&RDC are not in the scope of the IETF, yet lower layer
   designers and chipset manufactures take great care of the problem.
   For the IETF protocol designers, however, it is good to know the
   behaviors of lower layers so that the designed protocols can work
   perfectly with them.

   Once again, the IETF protocols we are going to talk about in the
   following sections are the customers of the lower layers.  If the
   different protocol layers want to get better service in a cooperative
   way, they should be considerate and understand each other.

3.1.  Radio Duty Cycling techniques

   This subsection describes the main three RDC techniques.  Note that
   more than one of the presented techniques may be available or can
   even be combined in a specific radio technology:

   a) Channel sampling.  In this solution, the radio interface of a
   device periodically monitors the channel for very short time
   intervals (i.e. with a low duty cycle) with the aim of detecting
   incoming transmissions.  In order to make sure that a receiver can
   correctly receive a transmitted data unit, the sender may prepend a
   preamble of a duration at least the sampling period to the data unit
   to be sent.  Another option for the sender is to repeatedly transmit
   the data unit, instead of sending a preamble before the data unit.
   Once a transmission is detected by a receiver, the receiver may stay
   awake until the complete reception of the data unit.  Examples of
   radio technologies that use preamble sampling include ContikiMAC, the
   Coordinated Sampled Listening (CSL) mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and the
   Frequently Listening (FL) mode of ITU-T G.9959.

   b) Scheduled transmissions.  This approach allows a device to know
   the instants in which it should be awake (during some time interval)
   in order to receive data units.  Otherwise, the device may remain in
   sleep mode.  The decision on the instants that will be used for
   communication is reached by means of some form of negotation between
   the involved devices.  Such negotiation may be performed per
   transmission or per session/connection.  Bluetooth Low Energy
   (Bluetooth LE) is an example of a radio technology based on this
   mechanism.

   c) Listen after send.  This technique allows a node to remain in
   sleep mode by default, wake up and poll a sender (which must be ready
   to receive a poll message) for pending transmissions.  After sending
   the poll message, the node remains in receive mode, ready for a



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   potential incoming transmission.  After a certain time interval, the
   node may go back to sleep.  For example, the Receiver Initiated
   Transmission (RIT) mode of 802.15.4e, and the transmission of data
   between a coordinator and a device in IEEE 802.15.4-2003 use this
   technique.

3.2.  Latency and buffering

   The latency of a data unit transmission to a duty-cycled device is
   equal to or greater than the latency of transmitting to an always-on
   device.  Therefore, duty-cycling leads to a trade-off between energy
   consumption and latency.  Note that in addition to a latency
   increase, RDC may introduce latency variance, since the latency
   increase is a random variable (which is uniformly distributed if
   duty-cycling follows a periodical behavior).

   On the other hand, due to the latency increase of duty-cycling, a
   sender waiting for a transmission opportunity may need to store
   subsequent outgoing packets in a buffer, increasing memory
   requirements and potentially incurring queuing waiting time that
   contributes to the packet overall delay and increases the probability
   of buffer overflow, leading to losses.

3.3.  Throughput

   Although throughput is not typically a key concern in constrained
   node network applications, it is indeed important in some services in
   this kind of networks, such as over-the-air software updates or when
   off-line sensors accumulate measurements that have to be quickly
   transferred when there is a connectivity opportunity.

   Since RDC introduces inactive intervals in energy-constrained
   devices, it reduces the throughput that can achieved when
   communicating with such devices.  There exists a trade-off between
   the achievable throughput and energy consumption.

3.4.  Radio interface tuning

   The parameters controlling the radio duty cycle have to be carefully
   tuned to achieve the intended application and/or network
   requirements.  On the other hand, upper layers should take into
   account the expected latency and/or throughput behavior due to RDC.
   The next subsection provides details on key parameters controlling
   RDC mechanisms, and thus fundamental trade-offs, for various examples
   of relevant low-power radio technologies.






Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


3.5.  Power save services available in example low-power radios

   This subsection presents power save services and techniques used in a
   few relevant examples of wireless low-power radios: IEEE 802.11,
   Bluetooth LE and IEEE 802.15.4.  For a more detailed overview of each
   technology, the reader may refer to the literature or to the
   corresponding specifications.

3.5.1.  Power Save Services Provided by IEEE 802.11

   IEEE 802.11 defines the Power Save Mode (PSM) whereby a station may
   indicate to an Access Point (AP) that it will enter a sleep mode
   state.  While the station is sleeping, the AP buffers any frames that
   should be sent to the sleeping station.  The station wakes up every
   Listen Interval (which can be a multiple of the Beacon Interval) in
   order to receive beacons.  The AP signals in the beacon whether there
   is data pending for the station or not.  If there are not frames to
   be sent to the station, the latter may get back to sleep mode.
   Otherwise, the station may send a message requesting the transmission
   of the buffered data and stay awake in receive mode.

   IEEE 802.11v [IEEE80211v] further defines mechanisms and services for
   power save of stations/nodes that include flexible multicast service
   (FMS), proxy ARP advertisement, extended sleep modes, traffic
   filtering.  It would be useful if upper layer protocols knows such
   capabilities provided by the lower layer, so that they can coordinate
   with each other.

   These services include:

   Proxy ARP: The Proxy ARP capability enables an Access Point (AP) to
   indicate that the non-AP station (STA) will not receive ARP frames.
   The Proxy ARP capability enables the non-AP STA to remain in power-
   save for longer periods of time.

   Basic Service Set (BSS) Max Idle Period management enables an AP to
   indicate a time period during which the AP does not disassociate a
   STA due to non-receipt of frames from the STA.  This supports
   improved STA power saving and AP resource management.

   FMS: A service in which a non-access point (non-AP) station (STA) can
   request a multicast delivery interval longer than the delivery
   traffic indication message (DTIM) interval for the purposes of
   lengthening the period of time a STA may be in a power save state.

   Traffic Filtering Service (TFS): A service provided by an access
   point (AP) to a non-AP station (STA) that can reduce the number of
   frames sent to the non-AP STA by not forwarding individually



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   addressed frames addressed to the non-AP STA that do not match
   traffic filters specified by the non-AP STA.

   Using the above services provided by the lower layer, the constrained
   nodes can achieve either client initiated power save (via TFS) or
   network assisted power save (Proxy-ARP, BSS Max Idel Period and FMS).

   Upper layer protocols would better synchronize with the parameters
   such as FMS interval and BSS MAX Idle Period, so that the wireless
   transmissions are not triggered periodically.

3.5.2.  Power Save Services Provided by Bluetooth LE

   Bluetooth LE is a wireless low-power communications technology that
   is the hallmark component of the Bluetooth 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2
   specifications [Bluetooth42].  BT-LE has been designed for the goal
   of ultra-low-power consumption.  Currently, it is possible to run
   IPv6 over Bluetooth LE networks by using a 6LoWPAN variant adapted to
   BT-LE [RFC7668].

   Bluetooth LE networks comprise a master and one or more slaves which
   are connected to the master.  The Bluetooth LE master is assumed to
   be a relatively powerful device, whereas a slave is typically a
   constrained device (e.g. a class 1 device).

   Medium access in Bluetooth LE is based on a Time Division Multiple
   Access (TDMA) scheme which is coordinated by the master.  This device
   determines the start of connection events, in which communication
   between the master and a slave takes place.  At the beginning of a
   connection event, the master sends a poll message, which may
   encapsulate data, to the slave.  The latter must send a response,
   which may also contain data.  The master and the slave may continue
   exchanging data until the end of the connection event.  The next
   opportunity for communication between the master and the slave will
   be in the next connection event scheduled for the slave.

   The time between consecutive connection events is defined by the
   connInterval parameter, which may range between 7.5 ms and 4 s.  The
   slave may remain in sleep mode since the end of its last connection
   event until the beginning of its next connection event.  Therefore,
   Bluetooth LE is duty-cycled by nature.  Furthermore, after having
   replied to the master, a slave is not required to listen to the
   master (and thus may keep the radio in sleep mode) for
   connSlaveLatency consecutive connection events. connSlaveLatency is
   an integer parameter between 0 and 499 which should not cause link
   inactivity for more than connSupervisionTimeout time.  The
   connSupervisionTimeout parameter is in the range between 100 ms and
   32 s.



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   Upper layer protocols should take into account the medium access and
   duty-cycling behavior of Bluetooth LE.  In particular, connInterval,
   connSlaveLatency and connSupervisionTimeout determine the time
   between two consecutive connection events for a given slave.  The
   upper layer packet generation pattern and rate should be consistent
   with the settings of the aforementioned parameters (and vice versa).

3.5.3.  Power Save Services in IEEE 802.15.4

   IEEE 802.15.4 is a family of standard radio interfaces for low-rate,
   low-power wireless networking [fifteendotfour].  Since the
   publication of its first version in 2003, IEEE 802.15.4 has become
   the de-facto choice for a wide range of constrained node network
   application domains and has been a primary target technology of
   various IETF working groups such as 6LoWPAN
   [RFC6282],[RFC6775],[RFC4944] and 6TiSCH
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture].  IEEE 802.15.4 specifies PHY and MAC
   layer functionality.

   IEEE 802.15.4 defines three roles called device, coordinator and
   Personal Area Network (PAN) coordinator.  The device role is adequate
   for nodes that do not implement the complete IEEE 802.15.4
   functionality, and is mainly targeted for constrained nodes with a
   limited energy source.  The coordinator role includes synchronization
   capabilities and is suitable for nodes that do not suffer severe
   constraints (e.g. a mains-powered node).  The PAN coordinator is a
   special type of coordinator that acts as a principal controller in an
   IEEE 802.15.4 network.

   IEEE 802.15.4 has mainly defined two types of networks depending on
   their configuration: beacon-enabled and nonbeacon-enabled networks.
   In the first network type, coordinators periodically transmit
   beacons.  The time between beacons is divided in three main parts:
   the Contention Access Period (CAP), the Contention Free Period (CFP)
   and an inactive period.  In the first period, nodes use slotted
   Carrier Sense Multiple Access / Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) for
   data communication.  In the second one, a TDMA scheme controls medium
   access.  During the idle period, communication does not take place,
   thus the inactive period is a good opportunity for nodes to turn the
   radio off and save energy.  The coordinator announces in each beacon
   the list of nodes for which data will be sent in the subsequent
   period.  Therefore, devices may remain in sleep mode by default and
   wake up periodically to listen to the beacons sent by their
   coordinator.  If a device wants to transmit data, or learns from a
   beacon that it is an intended destination, then it will exchange
   messages with the coordinator and will thus consume energy.  An
   underlying assumption is that when a message is sent to a




Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   coordinator, the radio of the latter will be ready to receive the
   message.

   The beacon interval and the duration of the beacon interval active
   portion (i.e. the CAP and the CFP), and thus the duty cycle, can be
   configured.  The parameters that control these times are called
   macBeaconOrder and macSuperframeOrder, respectively.  As an example,
   when IEEE 802.15.4 operates in the 2.4 GHz PHY, both times can be
   (independently) set to values in the range between 15.36 ms and 251.6
   s.

   In the beaconless mode, nodes use unslotted CSMA/CA for data
   transmission.  The device may be in sleep mode by default and may
   activate its radio to either i) request to the coordinator whether
   there is pending data for the device, or ii) to transmit data to the
   coordinator.  The wake-up pattern of the device, if any, is out of
   the scope of IEEE 802.15.4.

   Communication between the two ends of an IEEE 802.15.4 link may also
   take place in a peer-to-peer configuration, whereby both link ends
   assume the same role.  In this case, data transmission can happen at
   any moment.  Nodes must have their radio in receive mode, and be
   ready to listen to the medium by default (which for battery-enabled
   nodes may lead to a quick battery depletion), or apply
   synchronization techniques.  The latter are out of the scope of IEEE
   802.15.4.

   The main MAC layer IEEE 802.15.4 amendment to date is IEEE 802.15.4e.
   This amendment includes various new MAC layer modes, some of which
   include mechanisms for low energy consumption.  Among these, the
   Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) is an outstanding mode which
   offers robust features for industrial environments, among others.  In
   order to provide the functionality needed to enable IPv6 over TSCH,
   the 6TiSCH working group was created.  TSCH is based on a TDMA
   schedule whereby a set of time slots are used for frame transmission
   and reception, and other time slots are unscheduled.  The latter time
   slots may be used by a dynamic scheduling mechanism, otherwise nodes
   may keep the radio off during the unscheduled time slots, thus saving
   energy.  The minimal schedule configuration specified in
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal] comprises 101 time slots, whereby 95 of
   these time slots are unscheduled and the time slot duration is 15 ms.

   Other 802.15.4e modes, which are in fact designed for low energy, are
   the previously mentioned CSL and RIT.







Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


3.5.4.  Power Save Services in DECT ULE

   DECT Ultra Low Energy (DECT ULE) is a wireless technology building on
   the key fundamentals of traditional DECT / CAT-iq [EN300] but with
   specific changes to significantly reduce the power consumption at the
   expense of data throughput as specified in [TS102].  DECT ULE devices
   typically operates on special power optimized silicon, but can
   connect to a DECT Gateway supporting traditional DECT / CAT-iq for
   cordless telephony and data as well as the DECT ULE extensions.  It
   is possible to run IPv6 over DECT ULE by using a 6LoWPAN variant
   adapted for DECT ULE [I-D.ietf-6lo-dect-ule].

   DECT terminology operates with two major role definitions: The
   Portable Part (PP) is the power constrained device, while the Fixed
   Part (FP) is the Gateway or base station in a star topology.  DECT is
   operating in license free and reserved frequency bands based on TDMA/
   FDMA and TDD using dynamic channel allocation for interference
   avoidance.  It provides good indoor (~50 m) and outdoor (~300 m)
   coverage.  It is using a frame length of 10 ms, which is divided into
   24 timeslots and it is supporting connection oriented, packet data
   and connection less services.

   The FP usually transmits a so-called dummy bearer (beacon) that is
   used to broadcast synchronization, system and paging information.
   The slot/carrier position of this dummy bearer can automatically be
   reallocated in order to avoid mutual interference with other DECT
   signals.

   At MAC level DECT ULE communications between FP and PP are initiated
   by the PP.  A FP can initiate communication indirectly by sending
   paging signal to a PP.  The PP determines the timeslot and frequency
   on which the communication between FP and PP takes place.  The PP
   verifies the radio timeslot/frequency position is unoccupied before
   it initiates its transmitter.  An access-request message, which
   usually carries data, is sent to the FP.  The FP sends a confirm
   message, which also may carry data.  More data can be sent in
   subsequent frames.  A MAC level automatic retransmission scheme
   improves data transfer reliability significant.  A segmentation and
   reassembly scheme supports transfer of larger higher layer SDUs and
   provides data integrity check.  The DECT ULE packet data service
   ensures data integrity, proper sequencing, duplicate protection, but
   does not guaranteed delivery.  Higher layers protocols have to take
   this into considerations.

   The FP may send paging information to PPs to trigger connection setup
   and indicate required service type.  The interval between paging
   information to a specific PP can be defined in range 10 ms to 327
   seconds.  The PP may enter sleep mode to save power.  The listening



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   interval is defined by the PP application.  For short sleep intervals
   (below ~10 seconds) the PP may be able to retain synchronization to
   the FP dummy bearer and only turn on the receiver during the expected
   timeslot.  For longer sleep intervals the PP can't keep
   synchronization and has to search for and resynchronize to the FP
   dummybearer.  Hence, longer sleep interval reduces the average energy
   consumption, but adds a energy consumption penalty for acquiring
   synchronization to the FP dummy bearer.  The PP can obtain all
   information to determine paging and acquire synchronization
   information in a single reception of one full timeslot.

   Packet data latency is normally 30 ms for short packets (below or
   equal to 32 octets), however if retry and back-off scenarios occur,
   the latency is increased.  The latency can actually be reduced to
   about 10 ms by doing energy consuming RSSI scanning in advance.  In
   the direction from FP to PP the latency is usually increased by the
   used paging interval and the sleep interval.  The MAC layer can
   piggyback commands to improve efficiency (reduce latency) of higher
   layer protocols.  Such commands can instruct the PP to initiate a new
   packet transfer in N frames without the need for resynchronization
   and listening to paging or instruct the PP to stay in a higher duty
   cycle paging detection mode.

   The DECT ULE technology allows per PP configuration of paging
   interval, MTU size, reassembly window size and higher layer service
   negotiation and protocol.

4.  IP Adaptation and Transport Layer

   6LoWPAN is the adaption layer to run IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 MAC&PHY.
   It was born to fill the gap that the IPv6 layer does not support
   fragmentation and assembly of <1280-byte packets while IEEE 802.15.4
   only supports a MTU of 127 bytes.

   IPv6 is the basis for the higher layer protocols, including both TCP/
   UDP transport and applications.  So they are quite ignorant of the
   lower layers, and are almost neutral to the energy-efficiency
   problem.

   What the network stack can optimize is to save the computing power.
   For example the Contiki implementation has multiple cross layer
   optimizations for buffers and energy management, e.g., the computing
   and validation of UDP/TCP checksums without the need of reading IP
   headers from a different layer.  These optimizations are software
   implementation techniques, and out of the scope of IETF and the LWIG
   working group.





Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   6LoWPAN contributes to the energy-efficiency problem in two ways.
   First of all, it swaps computing with communication. 6LoWPAN applies
   compression of the IPv6 header.  This means less amount of data will
   be handled by the lower layer, but both the sender and receiver
   should spend more computing power on the compression and
   decompression of the packets over the air.  Secondly, the 6LoWPAN
   working group developed the energy-efficient Neighbor Discovery
   called 6LoWPAN-ND, which is an energy efficient replacement of the
   IPv6 ND in constrained environments.  IPv6 Neighbor Discovery was not
   designed for non-transitive wireless links, as its heavy use of
   multicast makes it inefficient and sometimes impractical in a low-
   power and lossy network. 6LoWPAN-ND describes simple optimizations to
   IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, its addressing mechanisms, and duplicate
   address detection for Low-power Wireless Personal Area Networks and
   similar networks.  However, 6LoWPAN ND does not modify Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection (NUD) timeouts, which are very short (by
   default three transmissions spaced one second apart).  NUD timeout
   settings should be tuned taking into account the latency that may be
   introduced by duty-cycled mechanisms at the link layer, or
   alternative, less impatient NUD algorithms should be considered
   [I-D.ietf-6man-impatient-nud].

5.  Routing Protocols

   The routing protocol designed by the IETF for constrained
   environments is called RPL [RFC6550].  As a routing protocol, RPL has
   to exchange messages periodically and keep routing states for each
   destination.  RPL is optimized for the many-to-one communication
   pattern, where network nodes primarily send data towards the border
   router, but has provisions for any-to-any routing as well.

   The authors of the Powertrace tool [Powertrace] studied the power
   profile of RPL.  It divides the routing protocol into control and
   data traffic.  The control channel uses ICMP messages to establish
   and maintain the routing states.  The data channel is any application
   that uses RPL for routing packets.  The study has shown that the
   power consumption of the control traffic goes down over time in a
   relatively stable network.  The study also reflects that the routing
   protocol should keep the control traffic as low as possible to make
   it energy-friendly.  The amount of RPL control traffic can be tuned
   by setting the Trickle algorithm parameters (i.e.  Imin, Imax and k)
   to adequate values.  However, there exists a trade-off between energy
   consumption and other performance parameters such as network
   convergence time and robustness.

   RFC 6551 [RFC6551] defines routing metrics and constraints to be used
   by RPL in route computation.  Among others, RFC 6551 specifies a Node
   Energy object that allows to provide information related to node



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   energy, such as the energy source type or the estimated percentage of
   remaining energy.  Appropriate use of energy-based routing metrics
   may help to balance energy consumption of network nodes, minimize
   network partitioning and increase network lifetime.

6.  Application Layer

6.1.  Energy efficient features in CoAP

   CoAP [RFC7252] is designed as a RESTful application protocol,
   connecting the services of smart devices to the World Wide Web. CoAP
   is not a chatty protocol, it provides basic communication services
   such as service discovery and GET/POST/PUT/DELETE methods with a
   binary header.

   The energy-efficient design is implicitly included in the CoAP
   protocol design.  CoAP uses a fixed-length binary header of only four
   bytes that may be followed by binary options.  To reduce regular and
   frequent queries of the resources, CoAP provides an observe mode, in
   which the requester registers its interest of a certain resource and
   the responder will report the value whenever it was updated.  This
   reduces the request response round trips while keeping information
   exchange a ubiquitous service and, most importantly, it allows an
   energy-constrained server to remain in sleep mode during the period
   between observe notification transmissions.

   Furthermore, [RFC7252] defines CoAP proxies which can cache resource
   representations previously provided by sleepy CoAP servers.  The
   proxies themselves may respond to client requests if the
   corresponding server is sleeping and the resource representation is
   recent enough.  Otherwise, a proxy may attempt to obtain the resource
   from the sleepy server.

6.2.  Sleepy node support

   Beyond these features of CoAP, there have been a number of proposals
   to further support sleepy nodes at the application layer by
   leveraging CoAP mechanisms.  A good summary of such proposals can be
   found in [I-D.rahman-core-sleepy-nodes-do-we-need], while an example
   application (in the context of illustrating several security
   mechanisms) in a scenario with sleepy devices has been described
   [I-D.ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors].  The different approaches to support
   sleepy nodes include exploiting the use of proxies, leveraging the
   Resource Directory [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory] or signaling
   when a node is awake to the interested nodes.  A more recent work
   defines publish-subscribe and message queuing extensions to CoAP and
   the Resource Directory in order to support devices that spend most of




Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   their time in a sleeping state [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub].  Notably,
   this work has been adopted by the CoRE Working Group.

   In addition to the work within the scope of CoAP to support sleepy
   nodes, other specifications define application layer functionality
   for the same purpose.  The Lightweight Machine-to-Machine (LWM2M)
   specification from the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) defines a Queue
   Mode whereby an LWM2M Server queues requests to an LWM2M Client until
   the latter (which may often stay in sleep mode) is online.  LWM2M
   functionality operates on top of CoAP.

   On the other hand, oneM2M defines a CoAP binding with an application
   layer mechanism for sleepy nodes.

6.3.  CoAP timers

   CoAP offers mechanisms for reliable communication between two CoAP
   endpoints.  A CoAP message may be signaled as a confirmable (CON)
   message, and an acknowledgment (ACK) is issued by the receiver if the
   CON message is correctly received.  The sender starts a
   Retransmission TimeOut (RTO) for every CON message sent.  The initial
   RTO value is chosen randomly between 2 and 3 s.  If an RTO expires,
   the new RTO value is doubled (unless a limit on the number of
   retransmissions has been reached).  Since duty-cycling at the link
   layer may lead to long latency (i.e. even greater than the initial
   RTO value), CoAP RTO parameters should be tuned accordingly in order
   to avoid spurious RTOs which would unnecessarily waste node energy
   and other resources.

7.  Summary

   We summarize the key takeaways in this document:

   a.  Internet protocols designed by IETF can be considered as the
       customer of the lower layers (PHY, MAC, and Duty-cycling).  To
       save power consumption, it is recommended to operate based on the
       lower layer behavior rather than treating the lower layer as a
       black box.

   b.  It is always useful to compress the protocol headers in order to
       reduce the transmission/reception power.  This design principles
       have been employed by many protocols in 6Lo and CoRE working
       group.

   c.  Broadcast and non-synchronized transmissions consume more than
       other TX/RX operations.  If protocols must use these ways to
       collect information, reduction of their usage by aggregating
       similar messages together will be helpful in saving power.



Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   d.  Saving power by sleeping occasionally is used widely.  Reduction
       of states is also an effective method to be energy efficient.

8.  Contributors

   Jens T.  Petersen, RTX, contributed the section on power save
   services in DECT ULE.

9.  Acknowledgments

   Carles Gomez has been supported by the Spanish Government, FEDER and
   the ERDF through projects TEC2012-32531 and TEC2016-79988-P.

   Authors would like to thank the review and feedback from a number of
   experts in this area: Carsten Bormann, Ari Keranen, Hannes
   Tschofenig, Dominique Barthel.

   The text of this document was improved based on IESG Document Editing
   session during IETF87.  Thank Ted Lemon, Joel Jaeggli, and efforts to
   initiate this facilities.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA requests.

11.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses the energy efficient protocol design, and
   does not incur any changes or challenges on security issues besides
   what the protocol specifications have analyzed.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [Bluetooth42]
              Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Core
              Specification Version 4.2", December 2014,
              <https://www.bluetooth.org/en-us/specification/adopted-
              specifications>.

   [EN300]    ""Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT);
              Common Interface (CI);"", March 2015,
              <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
              etsi_en/300100_300199/30017501/02.06.01_60/
              en_30017501v020601p.pdf>.





Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   [fifteendotfour]
              IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2015 IEEE
              Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Part
              15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-
              WPANs)", 2015, <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
              standard/802.15.4-2015.html>.

   [IEEE80211v]
              IEEE, , "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC)
              and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, Amendment 8: IEEE
              802.11 Wireless Network Management.", February 2012.

   [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>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.

   [RFC6282]  Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6551]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
              and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
              in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.








Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
              Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
              Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
              RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7668]  Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
              Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
              Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>.

   [TS102]    ""Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT);
              Ultra Low Energy (ULE); Machine to Machine Communications;
              Part 2: Home Automation Network (phase 2"", March 2015,
              <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
              etsi_ts/102900_102999/10293902/01.01.01_60/
              ts_10293902v010101p.pdf>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [AN079]    Kim, C., "Measuring Power Consumption of CC2530 With
              Z-Stack", September 2012,
              <http://www.ti.com/lit/an/swra292/swra292.pdf>.

   [Announcementlayer]
              Dunkels, A., "The Announcement Layer: Beacon Coordination
              for the Sensornet Stack. In Proceedings of EWSN 2011",
              February 2011,
              <http://dunkels.com/adam/dunkels11announcement.pdf>.

   [ContikiMAC]
              Dunkels, A., "The ContikiMAC Radio Duty Cycling Protocol,
              SICS Technical Report T2011:13", December 2011,
              <https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/download/2f406d
              3c4cc1eda32a234f7a1ad2cc3b/7eb199e4f8b00857e21af2b7d2b31c0
              d>.





Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   [I-D.bormann-lwig-7228bis]
              Bormann, C. and C. Gomez, "Terminology for Constrained-
              Node Networks", draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-00 (work in
              progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-6lo-dect-ule]
              Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Shelby, Z., Logt, M., and D.
              Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low
              Energy", draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-09 (work in progress),
              December 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-impatient-nud]
              Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
              Detection is too impatient", draft-ietf-6man-impatient-
              nud-07 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 (work
              in progress), January 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal]
              Vilajosana, X., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal
              6TiSCH Configuration", draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-21 (work
              in progress), February 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub]
              Koster, M., Keranen, A., and J. Jimenez, "Publish-
              Subscribe Broker for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-00 (work in
              progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory]
              Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and P. Stok, "CoRE
              Resource Directory", draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-09
              (work in progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors]
              Sethi, M., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and H. Back, "Practical
              Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing
              Smart Object Networks", draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02
              (work in progress), February 2017.

   [I-D.kovatsch-lwig-class1-coap]
              Kovatsch, M., "Implementing CoAP for Class 1 Devices",
              draft-kovatsch-lwig-class1-coap-00 (work in progress),
              October 2012.




Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            Lwig Energy Efficient               March 2017


   [I-D.rahman-core-sleepy-nodes-do-we-need]
              Rahman, A., "Sleepy Devices: Do we need to Support them in
              CORE?", draft-rahman-core-sleepy-nodes-do-we-need-01 (work
              in progress), February 2014.

   [Powertrace]
              Dunkels, , Eriksson, , Finne, , and Tsiftes, "Powertrace:
              Network-level Power Profiling for Low-power Wireless
              Networks", March 2011, <https://core.ac.uk/download/
              pdf/11435067.pdf?repositoryId=362>.

Authors' Addresses

   Carles Gomez
   Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
   C/Esteve Terradas, 7
   Castelldefels  08860
   Spain

   Email: carlesgo@entel.upc.edu


   Matthias Kovatsch
   ETH Zurich
   Universitaetstrasse 6
   Zurich, CH-8092
   Switzerland

   Email: kovatsch@inf.ethz.ch


   Hui Tian
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research
   Huayuanbeilu No.52
   Beijing, Haidian District  100191
   China

   Email: tianhui@ritt.cn


   Zhen Cao (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   China

   Email: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com






Gomez, et al.           Expires September 6, 2017              [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/