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

Versions: (draft-gnawali-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6719

Networking Working Group                                      O. Gnawali
Internet-Draft                                                  P. Levis
Intended status: Standards Track                     Stanford University
Expires: April 14, 2011                                 October 11, 2010


          The Minimum Rank Objective Function with Hysteresis
                draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-00

Abstract

   Hysteresis delays the effect of changes in link metric on parent
   selection.  Such delay makes the topology stable despite jitters in
   link metrics.  The Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks
   (RPL) allows the use of objective functions to construct routes that
   optimize or constrain a routing metric on the paths.  This
   specification describes the Minimum Rank Objective Function with
   Hysteresis (MRHOF), an objective function that minimizes the node
   rank in terms of a given metric, while using hysteresis to prevent
   excessive rank churn.  The use of MRHOF with RPL results in nodes
   selecting stable paths that minimize the given routing metric to the
   roots of a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG).

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2011.

Copyright Notice




Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


   Copyright (c) 2010 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 BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  The Minimum Rank Objective Function with Hysteresis . . . . . . 4
     3.1.  Computing the Path cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  Parent Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.3.  Computing Rank  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     3.4.  Advertising the path cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  MRHOF Variables and Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8




















Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


1.  Introduction

   An objective function allows RPL [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] to select paths
   that are best in terms of a given routing metric or select paths that
   meet certain constraints in terms of the routing metric.  RPL
   achieves this goal by selecting the parent among the alternate
   parents as dictated by that objective function.  For example, if an
   RPL instance uses an objective function that minimizes hop-count, RPL
   will select paths with minimum hop count.

   The nodes running RPL might use a number of metrics to describe a
   link or a node [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics] and make it available
   for route selection.  A metric can be used by different objective
   functions to optimize or constrain the metric in different ways.

   This specification describes MRHOF, an objective function for RPL.
   MRHOF uses hysteresis while selecting the path with the smallest
   metric value.  The path with the minimum cost has different property
   depending on the metric used for path selection.  For example, the
   use of MRHOF with the latency metric allows RPL to find stable
   minimum-latency paths from the nodes to a root in the DAG instance.
   The use of MRHOF with the ETX metric allows RPL to find the stable
   minimum-ETX paths from the nodes to a root in the DAG instance.

   MRHOF can be used with additive metric that must be minimized on the
   paths selected for routing.  Although MRHOF can be used with a number
   of metrics, this draft is based on experiences with the ETX metric.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

   This terminology used in this document is consistent with the
   terminologies described in [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology],
   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl], and [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics].

   This document introduces two terms:

   Selected metric:  The metric chosen by the network operator to use
         for path selection.  This metric can be any additive metric
         listed in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]






Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


   Path cost:  Path cost quantifies a property of an end-to-end path.
         Path cost is composed using the selected metric of the links
         along the path.  Path cost can be used by RPL to compare
         different paths.


3.  The Minimum Rank Objective Function with Hysteresis

   The Minimum Rank Objective Function with Hysteresis, MRHOF, is
   designed to find the paths with the smallest path cost while
   preventing excessive churn in the network.  It does so by switching
   to the minimum cost path only if the path cost of the current path is
   larger than the path cost of the minimum cost path by a given
   threshold.  MRHOF may be used with any additive metric listed in
   [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics] as long the routing objective is to
   minimize the given routing metric.  MRHOF cannot be used if the
   routing objective is to maximize the metric.

3.1.  Computing the Path cost

   Nodes compute the path cost for each candidate neighbor reachable on
   all the interfaces.  The Path cost represents the cost of the path,
   in terms of the selected metric, from a node to the root of the DODAG
   through the neighbor.

   Root nodes (Grounded or Floating) set the variable cur_min_path_cost
   to MIN_PATH_COST.

   A non-root node computes the path cost for a path to the root through
   each candidate neighbor by adding these two components:

   1.  The selected metric for the link to a candidate neighbor.

   2.  The value of the selected metric in the metric container in the
       DIO sent by that neighbor.

   A node SHOULD compute the path cost for the path through each
   candidate neighbor reachable through all the interfaces.  If a node
   cannot compute the path cost for the path through a candidate
   neighbor, the node MUST NOT select the candidate neighbor as its
   preferred parent with one exception.  If the node does not have
   metrics to compute the path cost through any of the candidate
   neighbors, it SHOULD join one of the candidate neighbors as a leaf
   node.

   If the selected metric of the link to a neighbor is not available,
   the path cost for the path through that neighbor SHOULD be set to
   MAX_PATH_COST.  This cost value will prevent this path from being



Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


   considered for path selection.

   The path cost corresponding to a neighbor SHOULD be re-computed each
   time:

   1.  The selected metric of the link to the candidate neighbor is
       updated.

   2.  A node receives a new metric advertisement from the candidate
       neighbor.

   This computation MAY also be performed periodically.  However, long
   intervals between periodic computation or deferring the computation
   for too long after new metric advertisements or updates to the
   selected link metric prevents results in node making parent selection
   based on stale link and path information.

3.2.  Parent Selection

   After computing the path cost for all the candidate neighbors
   reachable through all the interfaces for the current DODAG iteration,
   a node selects the preferred parent.  This process is called parent
   selection.

   A node MUST select a candidate neighbor as its preferred parent if
   the path cost corresponding to that neighbor is smaller than the path
   cost corresponding to the rest of the neighbors, except as indicated
   below:

   1.  If the smallest path cost for paths through the candidate
       neighbors is smaller than cur_min_path_cost by less than
       PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, the node MAY continue to use the current
       preferred parent.

   2.  If there are multiple paths with the smallest path cost and that
       the smallest path cost is smaller than cur_min_path_cost by at
       least PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, a node MAY use a different
       objective function to select the preferred parent among the
       candidates which are first hop on the path with the minimum cost.

   3.  A node MAY declare itself as a Floating root, and hence no
       preferred parent, depending on the configuration.

   4.  If the selected metric for a link is greater than
       MAX_LINK_METRIC, the node SHOULD exclude that link from
       consideration for parent selection.





Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


   5.  If cur_min_path_cost is greater than MAX_PATH_COST, the node MAY
       declare itself as a Floating root.

   6.  If the configuration disallows a node to be a Floating root and
       no neighbors are discovered, the node does not have a preferred
       parent, and MUST set cur_min_path_cost to MAX_PATH_COST.

3.3.  Computing Rank

   Once a node selects its preferred parent, it can use the following
   table to covert its path cost to the DAG root through its preferred
   parent (written as Cost in the table) to its rank:

                    +--------------------+------------+
                    |  Node/link Metric  |    Rank    |
                    +--------------------+------------+
                    |     Node Energy    | 255 - Cost |
                    |      Hop-Count     |    Cost    |
                    |       Latency      | Cost/65536 |
                    | Link Quality Level |    Cost    |
                    |         ETX        |    Cost    |
                    +--------------------+------------+

                  Table 1: Conversion of metric to rank.

   Node rank is undefined for these node/link metrics: Node state and
   attributes, node fanout ratio, throughput, and link color.

3.4.  Advertising the path cost

   Once the preferred parent is selected, the node sets its
   cur_min_path_cost variable to the path cost corresponding to the
   preferred parent.  Thus, cur_min_path_cost is the cost of the minimum
   cost path from the node to the root.  The value of the
   cur_min_path_cost is carried in the metric container whenever DIO
   messages are sent.


4.  MRHOF Variables and Parameters

   MRHOF uses the following variable:

      cur_min_path_cost: The cost of the path from a node through its
      preferred parent to the root computed at the last parent
      selection.

   MRHOF uses the following parameters:




Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


      MAX_LINK_METRIC: Maximum allowed value for the selected link
      metric for each link on the path.

      MAX_PATH_COST: Maximum allowed value for the path metric of a
      selected path.

      MIN_PATH_COST: The minimum allowed value for the path metric of
      the selected path.

      PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD: The difference between metric of the path
      through the preferred parent and the minimum-metric path to
      trigger new preferred parent selection.

   The parameter values are assigned depending on the selected metric.
   Here is an example parameter assignment for the ETX metric:

      MAX_LINK_METRIC: 10.  Disallow links with greater than 10 expected
      transmission count on the selected path.

      MAX_PATH_COST: 100.  Disallow paths with greater than 100 expected
      transmission count.

      MIN_PATH_COST: 0.  At root, the expected transmission count is 0.

      PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD: 1.0.  Switch to a new path only if it is
      requires at least one fewer transmission than the current path.


5.  Acknowledgements


6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requires an allocated OCP.  A value of 1 is
   requested.


7.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations to be developed in accordance to the output
   of the WG.


8.  References







Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of     October 2010


8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]
              Vasseur, J. and D. Networks, "Routing Metrics used for
              Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy Networks",
              draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-01 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
              Winter, T., Thubert, P., and R. Team, "RPL: IPv6 Routing
              Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks",
              draft-ietf-roll-rpl-05 (work in progress), December 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
              Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
              Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-01 (work in
              progress), May 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Omprakash Gnawali
   Stanford University
   S255 Clark Center, 318 Campus Drive
   Stanford, CA  94305
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 725 6086
   Email: gnawali@cs.stanford.edu


   Philip Levis
   Stanford University
   358 Gates Hall, Stanford University
   Stanford, CA  94305
   USA

   Email: pal@cs.stanford.edu








Gnawali & Levis          Expires April 14, 2011                 [Page 8]


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