[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

PAW                                                 G. Papadopoulos, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              N. Montavont
Intended status: Standards Track                          IMT Atlantique
Expires: August 1, 2019                                       P. Thubert
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        January 28, 2019


Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks in LLNs
                   draft-papadopoulos-paw-pre-reqs-00

Abstract

   Packet Replication and Elimination mechanism consists in duplicating
   data packets into several paths in the network to increase
   reliability and provide low jitter.  Over a wireless medium, this
   technique can take advantage of communication overhearing, when
   parallel transmissions over two adjacent paths are scheduled.  This
   document presents the concept and details the required changes to the
   current specifications that will be necessary to enable this.

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 https://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 August 1, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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



Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Tracks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Tracks Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Complex Tracks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Packet Replication and Elimination principles . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Packet Replication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Packet Elimination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Promiscuous Overhearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Requirements Related to Alternative Parent Selection  . .   5
     5.2.  Requirements Related to Propagated Information  . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Requirements Related to Cell Reservation  . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Requirements Related to Cells without ACKs  . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Requirements Related to Packet Elimination  . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Other Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   This draft describes industrial use cases which require deterministic
   flows over wireless multi-hop paths.

   The PAW use cases explicitly do not propose or suggest any specific
   solution or design for PAW architecture or protocols.  These are
   subjects of other PAW drafts.  The PAW use cases are not considered
   as concrete requirements by the PAW Working Group.

   The industrial use cases covered in this draft are professional
   audio, wireless for industrial applications and amusement parks.

2.  Terminology

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




Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


3.  Tracks

3.1.  Tracks Overview

   The 6TiSCH architecture introduces the concept of Tracks in 6TiSCH
   Architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture].  A simple track is
   composed of a sequence of cells (a combination of a transmitter, a
   receiver and a given channel offset) to ensure the transmission of a
   single packet from a source node to a destination node across a
   multihop path.

3.2.  Complex Tracks

   A Complex Track is designed as a directed acyclic graph from a source
   node towards a destination node to support multi-path forwarding, as
   introduced in 6TiSCH Architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture].  By
   employing DetNet [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] Packet Replication
   and Elimination (PRE) functions, several paths may be computed, and
   these paths may be more or less independent.  For example, a complex
   Track may branch off and rejoin over non-congruent paths (branches).

   In the following Section, we will detail Deterministic Networks PRE
   techniques.

4.  Packet Replication and Elimination principles

   In a nutshell, PRE consists in establishing several paths in a
   network to provide redundancy and parallel transmissions to bound the
   delay to traverse the network.  Optionally, promiscuous listening
   between paths is possible, such that the nodes on one path may
   overhear transmissions along the other path.  Considering the
   scenario depicted in Figure 1, many different paths are possible for
   S to reach R.  A simple way to take benefit from this topology could
   be to use the two independent paths via nodes A, C, E and via B, D,
   F.  But more complex paths are possible by interleaving transmissions
   from one level of the path to the upper level.

   The PRE may also take advantage of the shared properties of the
   medium to compensate for the potential loss that is incurred with
   radio transmissions.  For instance, when the source sends to A, B may
   listen and get a second chance to receive the frame without an
   additional transmission.  Note that B would not have to listen if it
   already received that particular frame at an earlier timeslot.








Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


                               (A)   (C)   (E)

                 source (S)                       (R) (root)

                               (B)   (D)   (F)


    Figure 1: A Typical Ladder Shape with Two Parallel Paths Toward the
                                Destination

   PRE model can be implemented in both centralized and distributed
   scheduling approach.  In the centralized approach, a Path Computation
   Element (PCE) scheduler calculates the routes and schedules the
   communication among the nodes along a circuit such as a Label
   switched path.  In the distributed approach, each node selects its
   route to the destination, typically using a source routing header.
   In both cases, a default parent and alternate parent(s) should be
   selected to set up complex tracks.

   In the following Subsections, detailed description of all required
   operations defined by PRE, namely, Alternative Path Selection, Packet
   Replication, Packet Elimination and Promiscuous Overhearing, will be
   described.

4.1.  Packet Replication

   The objective of PRE is to provide deterministic networking
   properties, with high reliability and bounded latency.  To achieve
   this goal, determinism in every hop of the forwarding paths MUST be
   guaranteed.  By employing Packet Replication procedure, each node
   transmits (i.e., replicates) each data packet to both its Default
   Parent (DP) and Alternative Parent (AP).  To do so, each node (i.e.,
   source and intermediate nodes) transmits the data packet twice in
   unicast to each parent.  For instance, in Figure 2, the source node S
   is transmitting the packet to both parents, nodes A and B, in two
   different timeslots within the same TSCH slotframe.  Thus, the packet
   eventually obtains parallel paths to the destination.


                          ===> (A) => (C) => (E) ===
                        //        \\//   \\//       \\
              source (S)          //\\   //\\         (R) (root)
                        \\       //  \\ //  \\      //
                          ===> (B) => (D) => (F) ===


   Figure 2: Packet Replication: S transmits twice the same data packet,
                     to its DP (A) and to its AP (B).



Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


4.2.  Packet Elimination

   The replication operation increases the traffic load in the network,
   due to packet duplications.  Thus, Packet Elimination operation
   should be applied at each RPL DODAG level to reduce the unnecessary
   traffic.  To this aim, once a node receives the first copy of a data
   packet, it discards the following copies.  Because the first copy
   that reaches a node is the one that counts, it is the only copy that
   will be forwarded upward.  Then, once a node performed the Packet
   Elimination operation, it will proceed with Packet Replication
   operation to forward the packet toward the RPL DODAG Root.

4.3.  Promiscuous Overhearing

   Considering that the wireless medium is broadcast by nature, any
   neighbor of a transmitter may overhear a transmission.  By employing
   the Promiscuous Overhearing operation, DP and AP eventually have more
   chances to receive the data packets.  In Figure 3, when node A is
   transmitting to its DP (node C), the AP (node D) and its Sibling
   (node B) may decode this data packet as well.  As a result, by
   employing correlated paths, a node may have multiple opportunities to
   receive a given data packet.  This feature not only enhances the end-
   to-end reliability but also it reduces the end-to-end delay.


                      ===> (A) ====> (C) ====> (E) ====
                    //     ^ | \\                      \\
          source (S)       | |   \\                      (R) (root)
                    \\     | v     \\                  //
                      ===> (B) ====> (D) ====> (F) ====


    Figure 3: Unicast to DP with Overhearing: by employing Promiscuous
   Overhearing, DP, AP and the Sibling nodes have more opportunities to
                       receive the same data packet.

5.  Requirements

5.1.  Requirements Related to Alternative Parent Selection

   To perform the Replication procedure, it is necessary to define the
   Alternative Parent(s) and, consequently, the path to the destination
   node, for each node in the wireless network.  An AP can be selected
   in many different ways, and is dependent on the implementation.

   Related requirements are:





Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


   Req1.1: The routing protocol SHOULD be extended to allow for each
   node to select AP(s) in addition to DP.  Thus, packet duplication
   (i.e., replication) to multiple parents could be possible.

   Req1.2: Considering that the Replication procedure significantly
   increases the traffic in a network, when proposing solutions for
   Alternative Parent Selection, it should be efficient enough to
   mitigate the potential uncontrolled packet duplications.

   Req1.3: The topology SHOULD be defined when proposing solutions for
   Alternative Parent Selection.  For instance, the ladder topology
   should be defined explicitly e.g., number of parallel paths, density.

5.2.  Requirements Related to Propagated Information

   To select an Alternative Parent, nodes MUST be aware of their
   grandparent node sets.  Thus, it is necessary nodes to propagate such
   information to their neighbors.  RPL [RFC6550] defines DODAG
   Information Object (DIO) Control Message to allow nodes to propagate
   information about themselves to potential children.  In Figure 4, DIO
   control message with a DAG Metric Container option is illustrated.
   However, RPL [RFC6550], does not indicates how to propagate parent
   set related information.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | RPLInstanceID |Version Number |             Rank              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |G|0| MOP | Prf |     DTSN      |     Flags     |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                            DODAGID                            +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | DAGMC Type (2)| DAGMC Length  |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   |                                                               |
   //                   DAG Metric Container data                 //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


     Figure 4: Example DIO Message with a DAG Metric Container option



Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


   Related requirements are:

   Req2.1: DIO control messages can include multiple options.  DAG
   Metric Container option [RFC6551] is structurally suitable for
   transferring parent node set information.  Therefore, to enable PRE,
   nodes MUST broadcast their parent node set to their potential
   children through the extended DIO control message.  For instance,
   "RPL DAG Metric Container (MC) Node State and Attribute (NSA) object
   type extension" [I-D.koutsiamanis-roll-nsa-extension] focuses on
   extending the DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] by defining new type-
   length-value (TLV), entitled Parent Node Set (PNS) which CAN be
   carried in the Node State and Attribute (NSA) object.

5.3.  Requirements Related to Cell Reservation

   As stated previously, to further increase the network reliability and
   to achieve deterministic packet deliveries at the destination node,
   Promiscuous Overhearing can be considered.

   As it is described in BCP 210 [RFC8180], in TSCH mode, the data
   frames are transmitted in unicast mode and are acknowledged by the
   receiving neighbor.  To perform the promiscuous overhearing
   procedure, there SHOULD be an option for the transmitted frames,
   i.e., in unicast, to be overheard by the potential neighborhood node.

   Related requirements are:

   Req3.1: The destination address filtering is performed at the MAC
   layer.  According to IEEE std. 802.15.4 [IEEE802154-2015], a node
   receiving a packet with a destination address different than its own
   and different to 0xFF discards the packet.  Thus, IEEE std. 802.15.4
   implementation SHOULD bypass this filtering either by configuration
   forcing to accept such the receiving frame or by using anycast/
   multicast address as destination.

   Req3.2: The 6top Protocol [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol] SHOULD be
   extended to possibly allow a cell reservation with two receivers,
   i.e., DP and AP.  Considering that each frame may be transmitted
   twice in unicast to each parent, then depending the transmission,
   either DP will acknowledge the frame or AP will.

   Req3.3: Next, to request the overhearing cells, the 6P ADD Request
   Format SHOULD be transmitted either twice to each parent, i.e., DP
   and AP, or once in multicast to both parents.  This procedure SHOULD
   be considered in 6top Protocol [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol]
   specification.





Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


5.4.  Requirements Related to Cells without ACKs

   As stated in BCP 210 [RFC8180], each date frame is acknowledged by
   the receiving node.  However, by employing promiscuous overhearing
   operation, particular attention should be given to who will
   acknowledge a transmission, i.e., the DP, and / or one of the AP(s)

   Related requirements are:

   Req4.1: To avoid the ACK collision, the TSCH Schedule as per BCP 210
   [RFC8180], only the destination node of a packet MUST acknowledge the
   data packet.

   Req4.2: The overhearing node can be configured with the timeslot set
   to shared, thus, there will be no acknowledgement from it.  However,
   there is the security issue that needs to be considered.  Since, the
   overhearing case imply that it is not possible to have per-pair
   keying, thus, there MUST be a key that the overhearing node will be
   aware of.  Hence, Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] specification should consider such
   scenario.

   Req4.3: Optionally, to achieve further consistency the overheard
   transmission need be acknowledged by both parents, i.e., DP and AP.
   To do so, MAC layer operation MUST be extended accordingly.

5.5.  Requirements Related to Packet Elimination

   By employing packet replication operation, the wireless network
   expects to perform the packet elimination operation along a complex
   Track to bound the number of the duplicated packets, i.e., the
   unnecessary traffic.

   Related requirements are:

   Req5.1: As per 6TiSCH Architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture],
   6TiSCH has no position about how the sequence numbers would be tagged
   in the packet.  However, it comes with Tagging Packets for Flow
   Identification.  More specifically, a wireless network expects that
   timeslots corresponding to copies of a same frame along a complex
   Track are correlated by configuration and, thus, does not need to
   process the sequence numbers.

6.  Security Considerations

   TODO.





Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA considerations.

8.  References

8.1.  Informative references

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol]
              Wang, Q., Vilajosana, X., and T. Watteyne, "6TiSCH
              Operation Sublayer Protocol (6P)", draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-
              protocol-12 (work in progress), June 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-19 (work
              in progress), December 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
              Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
              detnet-architecture-10 (work in progress), December 2018.

   [I-D.koutsiamanis-roll-nsa-extension]
              Koutsiamanis, R., Papadopoulos, G., Montavont, N., and P.
              Thubert, "RPL DAG Metric Container Node State and
              Attribute object type extension", draft-koutsiamanis-roll-
              nsa-extension-04 (work in progress), November 2018.

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

   [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,
              <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.





Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           PRE Requirements in PAW            January 2019


   [RFC8180]  Vilajosana, X., Ed., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal
              IPv6 over the TSCH Mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH)
              Configuration", BCP 210, RFC 8180, DOI 10.17487/RFC8180,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8180>.

8.2.  Other Informative References

   [IEEE802154-2015]
              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE standard
              for Information Technology, "IEEE Std 802.15.4-2015
              Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks
              (WPANs)", December 2015".

Authors' Addresses

   Georgios Papadopoulos (editor)
   IMT Atlantique
   Office B00 - 102A
   2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
   Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes  35510
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
   Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr


   Nicolas Montavont
   IMT Atlantique
   Office B00 - 106A
   2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
   Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes  35510
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 299 12 70 23
   Email: nicolas.montavont@imt-atlantique.fr


   Pascal Thubert
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis  06254
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com





Papadopoulos, et al.     Expires August 1, 2019                [Page 10]


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