draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06.txt   draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-07.txt 
6lo Working Group D. Dujovne 6tisch Working Group D. Dujovne
Internet-Draft Universidad Diego Portales Internet-Draft Universidad Diego Portales
Intended status: Standards Track M. Richardson Intended status: Standards Track M. Richardson
Expires: May 7, 2020 Sandelman Software Works Expires: 19 July 2020 Sandelman Software Works
November 04, 2019 16 January 2020
IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and
Enrollment Information Enrollment Information
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06 draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-07
Abstract Abstract
In TSCH mode of IEEE STD 802.15.4, opportunities for broadcasts are In TSCH mode of IEEE STD 802.15.4, opportunities for broadcasts are
limited to specific times and specific channels. Nodes in a TSCH limited to specific times and specific channels. Nodes in a TSCH
network typically frequently send Enhanced Beacon (EB) frames to network typically frequently send Enhanced Beacon (EB) frames to
announce the presence of the network. This document provides a announce the presence of the network. This document provides a
mechanism by which small details critical for new nodes (pledges) and mechanism by which small details critical for new nodes (pledges) and
long sleeping nodes may be carried within the Enhanced Beacon. long sleeping nodes may be carried within the Enhanced Beacon.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 July 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Use of BCP 14 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Use of BCP 14 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Layer-2 Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Layer-2 Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3. Layer-3 synchronization: IPv6 Router Solicitations and 1.3. Layer-3 synchronization: IPv6 Router Solicitations and
Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC7554] describes the use of the time-slotted channel hopping [RFC7554] describes the use of the time-slotted channel hopping
(TSCH) mode of [ieee802154]. As further detailed in [RFC8180], an (TSCH) mode of [ieee802154]. As further detailed in [RFC8180], an
Enhanced Beacon (EB) is transmitted during a slot designated a Enhanced Beacon (EB) is transmitted during a slot designated a
broadcast slot. broadcast slot.
1.1. Use of BCP 14 Terminology 1.1. Use of BCP 14 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", ::boilerplate bcp14
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[BCP14] [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.
Other terminology can be found in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] in Other terminology can be found in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] in
section 2.1. section 2.1.
1.2. Layer-2 Synchronization 1.2. Layer-2 Synchronization
As explained in section 6 of [RFC8180], the Enhanced Beacon (EB) has As explained in section 6 of [RFC8180], the Enhanced Beacon (EB) has
a number of purposes: synchronization of ASN and Join Metric, a number of purposes: synchronization of ASN and Join Metric,
carrying timeslot template identifier, carrying the channel hopping carrying timeslot template identifier, carrying the channel hopping
sequence identifier, and indicating the TSCH SlotFrame. sequence identifier, and indicating the TSCH SlotFrame.
The EB is used by nodes already part of a TSCH network to annouce its The EB is used by nodes already part of a TSCH network to annouce its
existence. Receiving an EB allows a Joining Node (pledge) to learn existence. Receiving an EB allows a Joining Node (pledge) to learn
about the network and synchronize to it. The EB may also be used as about the network and synchronize to it. The EB may also be used as
a means for a node already part of the network to re-synchronize a means for a node already part of the network to re-synchronize
[RFC7554]. [RFC7554].
There is a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast slot There is a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast slot
by each router in the network. These slots are rare, and with 10ms by each router in the network. Considering 10ms slots and a slot-
slots, with a slot-frame length of 100, there may be only 1 slot/s frame length of 100, these slots are rare and could result in only 1
for the beacon. slot/s for a broadcast, which needs to be used for the beacon.
Additional broadcasts for Router Advertisements, or Neighbor
Discovery could even more scarce.
1.3. Layer-3 synchronization: IPv6 Router Solicitations and 1.3. Layer-3 synchronization: IPv6 Router Solicitations and
Advertisements Advertisements
At layer 3, [RFC4861] defines a mechanism by which nodes learn about At layer 3, [RFC4861] defines a mechanism by which nodes learn about
routers by listening for multicasted Router Advertisements (RA). If routers by receiving multicast Router Advertisements (RA). If no RA
no RA is heard within a set time, then a Router Solicitation (RS) may is heard within a set time, then a Router Solicitation (RS) may be
be multicast, to which an RA will be received, usually unicast. sent as multicast, to which an RA will be received, usually unicast.
Although [RFC6775] reduces the amount of multicast necessary to do Although [RFC6775] reduces the amount of multicast necessary to do
address resolution via Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages, it still address resolution via Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages, it still
requires multicast of either RAs or RS. This is an expensive requires multicast of either RAs or RS. This is an expensive
operation for two reasons: First, there are few multicast timeslots operation for two reasons: First, there are few multicast timeslots
for unsolicited RAs; and second, if a pledge node does not hear an for unsolicited RAs; and second, if a pledge node does not hear an
RA, and decides to send a RS, a broadcast aloha slot is consumed with RA, and decides to send a RS, a broadcast aloha slot is consumed with
unencrypted traffic. In this case, a unicast RS may be sent in unencrypted traffic. In this case, a unicast RS may be sent in
response. response.
skipping to change at page 4, line 14 skipping to change at page 4, line 9
2. Protocol Definition 2. Protocol Definition
[RFC8137] creates a registry for new IETF IE subtypes. This document [RFC8137] creates a registry for new IETF IE subtypes. This document
allocates a new subtype. allocates a new subtype.
The new IE subtype structure is as follows. As explained in The new IE subtype structure is as follows. As explained in
[RFC8137] the length of the Sub-Type Content can be calculated from [RFC8137] the length of the Sub-Type Content can be calculated from
the container, so no length information is necessary. the container, so no length information is necessary.
1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD-XXX |R|P| res | proxy prio | rank priority | | TBD-XXX |R|P| res | proxy prio | rank priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------+-------------+-----------------+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| pan priority | | | pan priority | |
+---------------+ + +---------------+ +
| Join Proxy lower-64 | | Join Proxy lower-64 |
+ (present if P=1) + + (present if P=1) +
| | | |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| network ID | | network ID |
+ variable length, up to 16 bytes + + variable length, up to 16 bytes +
~ ~ ~ ~
+ + + +
| | | |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IE subtype structure Figure 1: IE subtype structure
R the Router Advertisement R-flag is set if the sending node will R the Router Advertisement R-flag is set if the sending node will
act as a Router for host-only nodes that need addressing via act as a Router for host-only nodes that need addressing via
unicast Router Solicitation messages. unicast Router Solicitation messages.
P if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower 64-bits of the P if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower 64-bits of the
Join Proxy's link-local address follows the network ID. If the Join Proxy's link-local address follows the network ID. If the
Proxy Address bit is not set, then the Link Layer address of the Proxy Address bit is not set, then the Link Layer address of the
Join Proxy is identical to the Layer-2 8-byte address used to Join Proxy is identical to the Layer-2 8-byte address used to
originate this enhanced beacon. In either case, the destination originate this enhanced beacon. In either case, the destination
layer-2 address of this beacon may use the layer-2 address which layer-2 address of this beacon may use the layer-2 address which
was used to originate the beacon. was used to originate the beacon.
proxy priority this field indicates the willingness fo the sender to proxy priority (proxy prio) this field indicates the willingness of
act as join proxy. Lower value indicates greater willingness to the sender to act as join proxy. Lower value indicates greater
act as a Join Proxy as described in willingness to act as a Join Proxy as described in
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]. Values range 0x00 (most [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]. Values range 0x00 (most
willing) to 0x7e (least willing). A priority of 0x7f indicates willing) to 0x7e (least willing). A priority of 0x7f indicates
that the announcer should never be considered as a viable that the announcer should never be considered as a viable
enrollment proxy. Only unenrolled pledges look at this value. enrollment proxy. Only unenrolled pledges look at this value.
rank priority the rank "priority" is set by the 6LR which sent the rank priority the rank "priority" is set by the 6LR which sent the
beacon and is an indication of how willing this 6LR is to serve as beacon and is an indication of how willing this 6LR is to serve as
an RPL parent within a particular network ID. This is a local an RPL parent within a particular network ID. This is a local
value to be determined in other work. It might be calculated from value to be determined in other work. It might be calculated from
RPL rank, and it may include some modifications based upon current RPL rank, and it may include some modifications based upon current
skipping to change at page 6, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
4. Privacy Considerations 4. Privacy Considerations
The use of a network ID may reveal information about the network. The use of a network ID may reveal information about the network.
The use of a SHA256 hash of the DODAGID, rather than using the The use of a SHA256 hash of the DODAGID, rather than using the
DODAGID directly provides some cover the addresses used within the DODAGID directly provides some cover the addresses used within the
network. The DODAGID is usually the IPv6 address of the root of the network. The DODAGID is usually the IPv6 address of the root of the
RPL mesh. RPL mesh.
An interloper with a radio sniffer would be able to use the network An interloper with a radio sniffer would be able to use the network
ID to map out the extend of the mesh network. ID to map out the extent of the mesh network.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
Allocate a new number TBD-XXX from Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID, as Allocate a new number TBD-XXX from Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID, as
defined by [RFC8137]. This entry should be called 6tisch-Join-Info, defined by [RFC8137]. This entry should be called 6tisch-Join-Info,
and should refer to this document. and should refer to this document.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
Thomas Watteyne provided extensive editorial comments on the Thomas Watteyne provided extensive editorial comments on the
document. Carles Gomez Montenegro generated a detailed review of the document. Carles Gomez Montenegro generated a detailed review of the
document at WGLC. document at WGLC. Tim Evens provided a number of useful editorial
suggestions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[BCP14] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [BCP14] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]
Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson, Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson,
"Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH", draft-ietf- "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH", Work in
6tisch-minimal-security-13 (work in progress), October Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-
2019. security-15, 10 December 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-
15.txt>.
[ieee802154] [ieee802154]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, ., "IEEE Std. IEEE standard for Information Technology, ., "IEEE Std.
802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
Wireless Personal Area Networks", n.d., Wireless Personal Area Networks", 2015,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.15.4-2015.html>. standard/802.15.4-2015.html>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
skipping to change at page 7, line 37 skipping to change at page 7, line 29
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC8137] Kivinen, T. and P. Kinney, "IEEE 802.15.4 Information [RFC8137] Kivinen, T. and P. Kinney, "IEEE 802.15.4 Information
Element for the IETF", RFC 8137, DOI 10.17487/RFC8137, May Element for the IETF", RFC 8137, DOI 10.17487/RFC8137, May
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8137>. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8137>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28 (work of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
in progress), October 2019. draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28, 29 October 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6tisch-
architecture-28.txt>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using [RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
59 lines changed or deleted 61 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/