[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [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                               May 3, 2016
Expires: November 4, 2016


                 ROLL Applicability Statement Template
               draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-09

Abstract

   This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing
   over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG.  This document is not
   for publication, but rather is to be used as a template.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Relationship to other documents . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Required Reading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.5.  Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Network Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.3.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication
               paradigm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.4.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . .   5
       2.2.5.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . .   5
       2.2.6.  Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . .   5
       2.2.7.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm  . . . .   5
     2.3.  Layer-2 applicability.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  RPL Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.3.  DAO Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.4.  Path Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.5.  Objective Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.6.  DODAG Repair  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.7.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.8.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.9.  P2P communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Layer-2 features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.2.  Services provided at layer-2  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.3.  6LowPAN options assumed.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.4.  MLE and other things  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . .   6
       4.3.1.  Trickle Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.3.2.  Other Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . .   8
       5.1.1.  Trickle Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.2.  Other Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . .   8



Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


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

1.  Introduction

   This document describes a series of questions which should be
   answered.  This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft.

   The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use
   the table of contents provided.  The goal is that all applicability
   statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum.

1.1.  Relationship to other documents

   EDITORIAL: The following should appear in all applicability
   statements:

   ROLL has specified a set of routing protocols for Lossy and Low-
   resource Networks (LLN) [RFC6550].  This applicability text describes
   a subset of these protocols and the conditions which make the subset
   the correct choice.  The text recommends and motivates the
   accompanying parameter value ranges.  Multiple applicability domains
   are recognized including: Building and Home, and Advanced Metering
   Infrastructure.  The applicability domains distinguish themselves in
   the way they are operated, their performance requirements, and the
   most probable network structures.  Each applicability statement
   identifies the distinguishing properties according to a common set of
   subjects described in as many sections.

   A common set of security threats are described in [RFC7416].  The
   applicability statements complement the security threats document by
   describing preferred security settings and solutions within the
   applicability statement conditions.  This applicability statements
   may recommend more light weight security solutions and specify the
   conditions under which these solutions are appropriate.

1.2.  Requirements Language

   (RFC2119 reference)





Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


1.3.  Terminology

   A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate.  A
   reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any
   terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here.

1.4.  Required Reading

   References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry
   group.  (two pages maximum.  This text should be (very) technical,
   should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group
   participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues)

1.5.  Out of scope requirements

   This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations
   where things are not in scope for this document.

   (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered
   urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks,
   and also tries to deal with rural requirements.  This should be three
   or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what
   this document covers)

2.  Deployment Scenario

2.1.  Network Topologies

   describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a
   single utility would employ.

2.2.  Traffic Characteristics

   Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is
   initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.)
   are being used.  Explain what assumptions are being made about
   authentication and authorization in those protocols.

2.2.1.  General

2.2.2.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm

2.2.3.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm








Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


2.2.4.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm

2.2.5.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm

2.2.6.  Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast

2.2.7.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm

2.3.  Layer-2 applicability.

   Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if
   there are options, they should be listed generally here, and
   specifically in section 4.2.

3.  Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements

   This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in
   this network topology.  If trees that are multiple layers deep are
   expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is
   understood.  Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be
   explained, perhaps with images references from other publications.

   This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a
   simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to
   construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to
   validate an implementation.

4.  RPL Profile

   This section should list the various features of RPL plus other
   layers of the LLN, and how they will be used.

4.1.  RPL Features

4.1.1.  RPL Instances

4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode

4.1.3.  DAO Policy

4.1.4.  Path Metrics

4.1.5.  Objective Function








Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


4.1.6.  DODAG Repair

4.1.7.  Multicast

4.1.8.  Security

4.1.9.  P2P communications

4.1.10.  IPv6 address configuration

4.2.  Layer-2 features

4.2.1.  Specifics about layer-2

   this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology
   that this document applies to.  A class of technologies is generally
   not acceptable.

4.2.2.  Services provided at layer-2

4.2.3.  6LowPAN options assumed.

4.2.4.  MLE and other things

4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges

4.3.1.  Trickle Parameters

   This section is intended to document the specific value (or ranges)
   appropriate for this kind of deployment.  This includes trickle
   specific parameters such as those of RFC6550, section 8.3.1: Imin
   (DIOInternvalMin), Imax (DIOIntrevalDoublings), and k
   (DIORedundancyConstant).  While it is not necessary to hard code
   these parameters into RPL nodes, as they are announced as part of the
   DIO message, it is important for researchers who are trying to
   validate the convergence properties of the resulting deployment to
   understand what values have been selected.

4.3.2.  Other Parameters

   There are additional values which are present in the DODAG
   Configuration option.  The purpose of this section is to: a) document
   what values are configured, b) if a default value is used, if it is
   appropriate for this deployment.

   These values include: MaxRankIncrease, MinHopRankIncrease, the
   Objective Code Point to use, Default Lifetime, Lifetime Units...




Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


   In addition, the kinds of metrics which will be used (RFC6551) needs
   to be specified.  If Objective Function 0 (RFC6552) is used, then it
   specifies a number of values, but also needs definitions of the
   stretch_of_rank, and rank_factor.

   If MRHOF (RFC6719) is used, then section 5 of this document requires
   selection of: MAX_LINK_METRIC, MAX_PATH_COST,
   PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, PARENT_SET_SIZE, and ALLOW_FLOATING_ROOT.

5.  MPL Profile

   This section should list the various features of MPL.  In considering
   the parameters, a number of questions come up:

   1)    What are the maximum and minimum 1-hop MPL router neighbours of
         all the MPL routers?

   2)    what is the arrival rate of new packets that need repetition in
         a MPL router

   3)    Is there a deadline associated with the packets

   4)    What is the shortest number of hops of the longest path between
         sources and destinations

   5)    What are the values of the MAC: back-off values, retries,
         buffer size.

   6)    What is the background load of other non MPL applications.

   7)    arrival probability of 1-hop packets

   As the corresponding design space is incredibly large, probably only
   a limited subset of the design space is viable.

   Here is an example scenario:

   o  5 neighbours

   o  once every 100 ms (rate at sources is once every 300-500 ms)

   o  yes, 200 ms

   o  5 hops, with mostly 1 hop

   o  no buffer, retry 1, back-off 2

   o  absent



Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


   o  100-80%

   leading to k=3-5, Imin =30-70 ms, repeat = 2, Imax n/a.

   It is crital operational boundary conditions together with
   appropriate MPL parameter values are published in this applicability
   statements.  All applicability statements together may give a good
   hint which MPL parameters and boundary conditions to choose.

5.1.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges

5.1.1.  Trickle Parameters

5.1.1.1.  Imin

5.1.1.2.  Imax

5.1.2.  Other Parameters

5.1.2.1.  Hot Limit

6.  Manageability Considerations

7.  Security Considerations

7.1.  Security Considerations during initial deployment

   (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors,
   initial network keys.  It explains if this happens at the factory, in
   a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like
   http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/
   CullenJennings.pdf)

7.2.  Security Considerations during incremental deployment

   (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the
   dead nodes' identity, or not.  How are nodes retired.  How are nodes
   removed if they are compromised)

7.3.  Security Considerations for P2P uses

   (When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may
   have different security needs.)








Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


8.  Other Related Protocols

9.  IANA Considerations

10.  Acknowledgements

   This document was created from a number source applicatbility
   templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, draft-
   phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt.

   The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security
   Directorate.

   A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including
   the MPL considerations/calculations

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7416]  Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
              and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
              the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
              (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6206]  Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
              "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
              March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.








Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             roll-applicatbility                  May 2016


Author's Address

   Michael C. Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   470 Dawson Avenue
   Ottawa, ON  K1Z 5V7
   CA

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
   URI:   http://www.sandelman.ca/









































Richardson              Expires November 4, 2016               [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/