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

Versions: (draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Network Working Group                                      M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                                       SSW
Intended status: Informational                        September 17, 2013
Expires: March 21, 2014


                 ROLL Applicability Statement Template
               draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-03

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  This document is not
   for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.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 March 21, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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 March 21, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Required Reading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.4.  Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     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 . . . . . .   4
       2.2.5.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . .   4
       2.2.6.  Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . .   4
       2.2.7.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm  . . . .   4
     2.3.  Layer-2 applicability.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.7.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.8.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.9.  P2P communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Layer-2 features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.1.  Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  Services provided at layer-2  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.3.  6LowPAN options assumed.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.4.  MLE and other things  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . .   5
       4.3.1.  Trickle Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.3.2.  Other Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . .   7
       5.1.1.  Trickle Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.1.2.  Other Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . .   7
     7.2.  Security Considerations during incremental deployment . .   7



Richardson               Expires March 21, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


     7.3.  Security Considerations for P2P uses  . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

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.  Requirements Language

   (RFC2119 reference)

1.2.  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.

1.3.  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)

1.4.  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




Richardson               Expires March 21, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


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

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





Richardson               Expires March 21, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


   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

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









Richardson               Expires March 21, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


4.3.2.  Other Parameters

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

   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



Richardson               Expires March 21, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


   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.)

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.




Richardson               Expires March 21, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility            September 2013


   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, March 1997.

11.2.  Informative References

   [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.

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 March 21, 2014                 [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/