[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment

6lo                                                     T. Watteyne, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            Analog Devices
Intended status: Informational                                C. Bormann
Expires: August 20, 2018                         Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                              P. Thubert
                                                                   Cisco
                                                       February 16, 2018


                    LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding
                 draft-watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment-00

Abstract

   This document gives an overview of LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding.
   When employing adaptation layer fragmentation in 6LoWPAN, it may be
   beneficial for a forwarder not to have to reassemble each packet in
   its entirety before forwarding it.  This has been always possible
   with the original fragmentation design of RFC4944.  This document
   details the Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) implementation technique
   which reduces the latency and increases end-to-end reliability in
   route-over forwarding, and discusses its limits.

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 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


   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.  Overview of 6LoWPAN Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Limits of Per-Hop Fragmentation and Reassembly  . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Memory Management and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) Implementation  . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Critique of VRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Overview of 6LoWPAN Fragmentation

   6LoWPAN fragmentation is defined in [RFC4944].  Although [RFC6282]
   updates [RFC4944], it does not redefine 6LoWPAN fragmentation.

   We use Figure 1 to illustrate 6LoWPAN fragmentation.  We assume node
   A forwards a packet to node B, possibly as part of a multi-hop route
   between IPv6 source and destination nodes which are neither A nor B.

                  +---+                     +---+
           ... ---| A |-------------------->| B |--- ...
                  +---+                     +---+
                                 # (frag. 5)

                123456789                 123456789
               +---------+               +---------+
               |   #  ###|               |###  #   |
               +---------+               +---------+
                  outgoing                incoming
             fragmentation                reassembly
                    buffer                buffer

         Figure 1: Fragmentation at node A, reassembly at node B.

   Node A starts by compacting the IPv6 packet using header compression
   defined in [RFC6282].  If the resulting 6LoWPAN packet does not fit
   into a single link-layer frame, node A's 6LoWPAN sublayer cuts it



Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


   into multiple 6LoWPAN fragments, which it transmits as separate link-
   layer frames to node B.  Node B's 6LoWPAN sublayer reassembles these
   fragments, inflates the compressed header fields back to the original
   IPv6 header, and hands over the full IPv6 packet to its IPv6 layer.
   In Figure 1, node A has sent fragments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 to node B, node
   B has received fragments 1, 2, 3, 6 from node A, fragment 5 is still
   being transmitted at the link layer from node A to node B.

   A reassembly buffer for 6LoWPAN contains:

   o  datagram_size,
   o  datagram_tag and link-layer sender and receiver addresses (to
      which the datagram_tag is local),
   o  actual packet data from the fragments received so far, in a form
      that makes it possible to detect when the whole packet has been
      received and can be processed or forwarded,
   o  a timer that allows discarding the partial packet after a timeout.

   A fragmentation header is added to each fragment; it indicates what
   portion of the packet that fragment corresponds to.  Section 5.3 of
   [RFC4944] defines the format of the header for the first and
   subsequent fragments.  All fragments are tagged with a 16-bit
   "datagram_tag", used to identify which packet each fragment belongs
   to.  Each fragment can be uniquely identified by the source and
   destination link-layer addresses of the frame that carries it, and
   the datagram_tag.  The value of the datagram_tag only needs to be
   locally unique to nodes A and B.

   Node B's typical behavior, per [RFC4944], is as follows.  Upon
   receiving a fragment from node A with a datagram_tag previously
   unseen from node A, node B allocates a buffer large enough to hold
   the entire packet.  The length of the packet is indicated in each
   fragment (the datagram_size field), so node B can allocate the buffer
   even if the first fragment it receives is not fragment 1.  As
   fragments come in, node B fills the buffer.  When all fragments have
   been received, node B inflates the compressed header fields into an
   IPv6 header, and hands the resulting IPv6 packet to the IPv6 layer.

   This behavior typically results in per-hop fragmentation and
   reassembly.  That is, the packet is fully reassembled, then
   (re)fragmented, at every hop.

2.  Limits of Per-Hop Fragmentation and Reassembly

   There are at least 2 limits to doing per-hop fragmentation and
   reassembly:





Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


2.1.  Latency

   When reassembling, a node needs to wait for all the fragments to be
   received before being able to generate the IPv6 packet, and possibly
   forward it to the next hop.  This repeats at every hop.

   This may result in increased end-to-end latency compared to the case
   where each fragment would be forwarded without per-hop reassembly.

2.2.  Memory Management and Reliability

   Constrained nodes have limited memory.  Assuming 1 kB reassembly
   buffers, typical nodes only have enough memory for 1-3 reassembly
   buffers.

   Assuming the topology from Figure 2, where nodes A, B, C and D all
   send packets through node E.  We further assume that node E's memory
   can only hold 3 reassembly buffers.

                  +---+       +---+
          ... --->| A |------>| B |
                  +---+       +---+\
                                    \
                                    +---+    +---+
                                    | E |--->| F | ...
                                    +---+    +---+
                                    /
                                   /
                  +---+       +---+
          ... --->| C |------>| D |
                  +---+       +---+

            Figure 2: Illustrating the Memory Management Issue.

   When nodes A, B and C concurrently send fragmented packets, all 3
   reassembly buffers in node E are occupied.  If, at that moment, node
   D also sends a fragmented packet, node E has no option but to drop
   one of the packets, lowering end-to-end reliability.

3.  Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) Implementation

   One implementation of 6LoWPAN fragmentation overcomes the limits
   listed in Section 2.  The idea is for a node to immediately
   retransmit a fragment it receives, without fully reassembling the
   packet.  This idea was introduced in Section 2.5.2 of [BOOK].  That
   is, a node may attempt to send out the data for a fragment in the
   form of a forwarded fragment, as soon as all necessary information
   for that is available.



Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


   Obviously, all fragments need to be sent with the same outgoing
   address (otherwise a full reassembly implementation would discard the
   fragments) and the same datagram_tag.

   We use Figure 3 to illustrate VRB, and focus on the behavior of node
   E.  With VRB, node E maintains a VRB table which functions similarly
   to a switching table: when receiving a fragment from node B with
   datagram_tag=2, forward it to node F with datagram_tag=8.

    +---+      +---+
    | A |----->| B |                       +-------------+-------------+
    +---+ #(5) +---+\ #(2)                 |  incoming   |   outgoing  |
                     \                     +-------+-----+-------+-----+
                     +---+ #(8) +---+      |L2 src | tag |L2 dest| tag |
                     | E |----->| F |      +=======+=====+=======+=====+
                     +---+ %(5) +---+      |     B |   2 |     F |   8 |
                     /                     |     D |   2 |     F |   5 |
                    / %(2)                 |           empty           |
    +---+ %(1) +---+                       |           empty           |
    | C |----->| D |                       +-------+-----+-------+-----+
    +---+      +---+                               Node E's VRB table.

   Figure 3: Illustrating VRB. #(5) and %(1) are fragments from packets
       coming from nodes A and C, with datagram_tag set to 5 and 1,
                               respectively.

   The VRB table is initially empty.  An implementation might have for
   example pre-allocate memory for a VRB table with 4 entries (as in
   Figure 3), initially cleared.

   When node E receives fragment 1 from node B with datagram_tag=2, it
   inspects the contents of the fragment and reads out the destination
   IPv6 address.  When it is not destined to it, node E identifies the
   next hop to send this fragment to.  It then creates an entry in the
   VRB table which contains 4 fields: (1) the link-layer address of the
   sender of the fragment it received, (2) the datagram_tag of the
   fragment it received, (3) the link-layer address of the next hop, (4)
   a datagram_tag for the fragments it will send.  The latter
   datagram_tag must be locally unique.

   Any subsequent fragment that matches the "incoming" columns in the
   node's VRB table are immediately forwarded using the information in
   the "outgoing" columns.  Note that, while this results in a behavior
   similar to link-layer switching, what is really happening is that the
   node has a virtual reassembly buffer.  That is, it operates as if the
   packet were reassembled and fragmented, without ever actually holding
   a fully reassembled packet in memory.




Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


   Upon forwarding the last fragment of a packet, the VRB table entry
   can be cleared, and reused for a future packet.  If the last fragment
   of a packet is dropped, the VRB table entry can be invalidated by
   timeout.  Its timeout value is set to a maximum of 60 seconds as the
   reassembly timeout defined in [RFC4944].

   A simple implementation may do away with any attempt to keep packet
   data in the virtual reassembly buffer.  It then has to discard all
   non-first fragments for which a reassembly buffer is not already
   available (penalizing reordering, which however may be rare).

   Note that the decision to do local processing of a packet needs to be
   taken with the first fragment - such packets of course do need to be
   fully reassembled (unless transport and application also can cope
   with fragments, which they rarely can in the presence of security).

   [RFC6282] defines the header compression format for 6LoWPAN.  One
   important impact of header compression is that the header is no
   longer of a fixed length.  In particular, changes made by a forwarder
   may gain or lose the ability to use a more highly compressed variant,
   changing the length of the header in the packet.
   If the change increases the size, the maximum frame size may be
   exceeded, leading to the need to re-fragment in the forwarder.  This
   is less of a problem with full reassembly, but with virtual
   reassembly can lead to the need for sending an additional frame for
   each packet.

   The well-known approach to minimize the probability of this need is
   for the original sender to put all slack in the frame sizes into the
   _first_ packet, making this the smallest fragment and not the last
   one as would be done in a naive implementation.  (This also has other
   consequences related to delivery probability, which are not discussed
   here.)  This makes sure an additional fragment only needs to be sent
   if the header expansion during forwarding would have created an
   additional fragment with full reassembly as well.

4.  Critique of VRB

   VRB overcomes the limits listed in Section 2.  Nodes don't wait for
   the last fragment before forwarding, reducing end-to-end latency.
   Similarly, the memory footprint of VRB is just the VRB table,
   reducing the packet drop probability significantly.

   It is possible for a network to be composed of some nodes that
   implement VRB, and others that don't.  Nodes that do not implement
   VRB reassemble the packet.

   There are, however, limits:



Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


   Non-zero Packet Drop Probability:  Each VRB table entry can be 12 B
       (assuming 16-bit link-layer addresses).  This is a footprint 2
       orders of magnitude smaller compared to needing a 1280-byte
       reassembly buffer for each packet.  Yet, the size of the VRB
       table necessarily remains finite.  In the extreme case where a
       node is required to concurrently forward more packets that it has
       entries in its VRB table, packets are dropped.
   No Fragment Recovery:  There is no mechanism in VRB for the node that
       reassembles a packet to request a single missing fragment.
       Dropping a fragment requires the whole packet to be resent.  This
       causes unnecessary traffic, as fragments are forwarded even when
       the destination node can never construct the original IPv6
       packet.
   No Per-Fragment Routing:  All subsequent fragments follow the same
       sequence of hops from the source to the destination node as
       fragment 1.

   The severity and occurrence of these limits depends on the link-layer
   used.  Whether these limits are acceptable depends entirely on the
   requirements the application places on the network.

   If the limits are both present and not accepted by the application,
   future specifications may define new protocols to overcome these
   limits.  One example is [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments] which
   defines a protocol which allows fragment recovery.

5.  Security Considerations

   An attacker can perform a DoS attack on a node implementing VRB by
   generating a large number of bogus "fragment 1" fragments without
   sending subsequent fragments.  This causes the VRB table to fill up.

   Secure joining and the link-layer security that it sets up protects
   against those attacks from network outsiders.

6.  IANA Considerations

   No requests to IANA are made by this document.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Yasuyuki Tanaka for his in-depth
   review of this document.








Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment        February 2018


8.  Informative References

   [BOOK]     Shelby, Z. and C. Bormann, "6LoWPAN", John Wiley & Sons,
              Ltd monograph, DOI 10.1002/9780470686218, November 2009.

   [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments]
              Thubert, P. and J. Hui, "LLN Fragment Forwarding and
              Recovery", draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-08 (work
              in progress), January 2018.

   [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,
              <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Watteyne (editor)
   Analog Devices
   32990 Alvarado-Niles Road, Suite 910
   Union City, CA  94587
   USA

   Email: thomas.watteyne@analog.com


   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Email: cabo@tzi.org


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

   Email: pthubert@cisco.com



Watteyne, et al.         Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 8]


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