--- 1/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12.txt 2016-04-25 18:15:56.182968926 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13.txt 2016-04-25 18:15:56.234970244 -0700 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ Roll N. Cam-Winget, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track J. Hui -Expires: September 22, 2016 Nest +Expires: October 27, 2016 Nest D. Popa Itron, Inc - March 21, 2016 + April 25, 2016 Applicability Statement for the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) in AMI Networks - draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12 + draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13 Abstract This document discusses the applicability of RPL in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) networks. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -24,21 +24,21 @@ 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 September 22, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 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 @@ -61,44 +61,42 @@ 4.1. Smart Grid Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Smart Grid Traffic QoS Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. RPL applicability per Smart Grid Traffic Characteristics 9 5. Layer 2 applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. IEEE Wireless Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. IEEE PowerLine Communication (PLC) technology . . . . . . 9 6. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 7.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 7.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 7.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 7.1.9. Peer-to-Peer communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.1.2. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7.1.3. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7.1.4. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7.1.5. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.1.6. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.1.7. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Description of Layer-two features . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2.1. IEEE 1901.2 PHY and MAC sub-layer features . . . . . 13 7.2.2. IEEE 802.15.4 (g + e) PHY and MAC features . . . . . 14 7.2.3. IEEE MAC sub-layer Security Features . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.3. 6LowPAN Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7.4. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 17 - 7.4.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 7.3. 6LowPAN Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 7.4. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 16 + 7.4.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.4.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 9.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 20 - 9.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 20 + 9.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 19 + 9.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 19 9.3. Security Considerations based on RPL's Threat Analysis . 20 - 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1. Introduction Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) systems enable the measurement, configuration, and control of energy, gas and water consumption and distribution, through two-way scheduled, on exception, and on-demand communication. @@ -492,68 +490,49 @@ 7.1. RPL Features 7.1.1. RPL Instances RPL operation is defined for a single RPL instance. However, multiple RPL instances can be supported in multi-service networks where different applications may require the use of different routing metrics and constraints, e.g., a network carrying both SDM and DA traffic. -7.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode - - In most scenarios, electric meters are powered by the grid they are - monitoring and are not energy-constrained. Instead, electric meters - have hardware and communication capacity constraints that are - primarily determined by cost, and secondarily by power consumption. - As a result, different AMI deployments can vary significantly in - terms of memory size, computation power and communication - capabilities. For this reason, the use of RPL non-storing mode - SHOULD be deployment specific. When meters are memory constrained - and cannot adequately store the route tables necessary to support - hop-by-hop routing, RPL non-storing mode SHOULD be preferred. On the - other hand, when nodes are capable of storing such routing tables, - the use of storing mode may lead to reduced overhead and route repair - latency. However, in high-density environments, storing routes can - be challenging because some nodes may have to maintain routing - information for a large number of descendents. In this document, we - only focus on non-storing mode of operation. - -7.1.3. DAO Policy +7.1.2. DAO Policy Two-way communication is a requirement in AMI systems. As a result, nodes SHOULD send DAO messages to establish downward paths from the root to themselves. -7.1.4. Path Metrics +7.1.3. Path Metrics Smart metering deployments utilize link technologies that may exhibit significant packet loss and thus require routing metrics that take packet loss into account. To characterize a path over such link technologies, AMI deployments can use the Expected Transmission Count (ETX) metric as defined in [RFC6551]. Additional metrics may be defined in companion RFCs. -7.1.5. Objective Function +7.1.4. Objective Function RPL relies on an Objective Function for selecting parents and computing path costs and rank. This objective function is decoupled from the core RPL mechanisms and also from the metrics in use in the network. Two objective functions for RPL have been defined at the time of this writing, OF0 [RFC6552] and MRHOF [RFC6719], both of which define the selection of a preferred parent and backup parents, and are suitable for AMI deployments. Additional objective functions may be defined in companion RFCs. -7.1.6. DODAG Repair +7.1.5. DODAG Repair To effectively handle time-varying link characteristics and availability, AMI deployments SHOULD utilize the local repair mechanisms in RPL. Local repair is triggered by broken link detection. The first local repair mechanism consists of a node detaching from a DODAG and then re-attaching to the same or to a different DODAG at a later time. While detached, a node advertises an infinite rank value so that its children can select a different parent. This process is known as poisoning and is described in Section 8.2.2.5 of [RFC6550]. While RPL provides an option to form a @@ -566,41 +545,35 @@ applications running over the network can tolerate. Note that when joining a different DODAG, the node need not perform poisoning. The second local repair mechanism controls how much a node can increase its rank within a given DODAG Version (e.g., after detaching from the DODAG as a result of broken link or loop detection). Setting the DAGMaxRankIncrease to a non-zero value enables this mechanism, and setting it to a value of less than infinity limits the cost of count- to-infinity scenarios when they occur, thus controlling the duration of disconnection applications may experience. -7.1.7. Multicast +7.1.6. Multicast Multicast support for RPL in non-storing mode are being developed in - companion RFCs (see [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast]). + companion RFCs (see [RFC7731]). -7.1.8. Security +7.1.7. Security AMI deployments operate in areas that do not provide any physical security. For this reason, the link layer, transport layer and application layer technologies utilized within AMI networks typically provide security mechanisms to ensure authentication, confidentiality, integrity, and freshness. As a result, AMI deployments may not need to implement RPL's security mechanisms and could rely on link layer and higher layer security features. -7.1.9. Peer-to-Peer communications - - Basic peer-to-peer capabilities are already defined in the RPL - [RFC6550]. Additional mechanisms for peer-to-peer communications are - proposed in companion RFCs (see [RFC6997]). - 7.2. Description of Layer-two features 7.2.1. IEEE 1901.2 PHY and MAC sub-layer features The IEEE Std. 1901.2 PHY layer is based on OFDM modulation and defines a time frequency interleaver over the entire PHY frame coupled with a Reed Solomon and Viterbi Forward Error Correction for maximum robustness. Since the noise level in each OFDM sub-carrier can vary significantly, IEEE 1901.2 specifies two complementary mechanisms allowing to fine-tune the robustness/performance tradeoff @@ -936,28 +908,28 @@ defined in Section 6 of [RFC7416]. Like any secure network infrastructure, an AMI deployment's ability to address node impersonation, active man-in-the-middle attacks relies on mutual authentication and authorization process. The credential management from the manufacturing imprint of security credentials of smart meters to all credentials of nodes in the infrastructure, all credentials must be appropriately managed and classified through the authorization process to ensure beyond the identity of the nodes, that the nodes are behaving or 'acting' in - their assigned roles. Known schemes + their assigned roles. Similarly, to ensure that data has not been modified, confidentiality and integrity at the suitable layers (e.g. link layer, application layer or both) should be used. To provide the security mechanisms to address these threats, an AMI - deployment must include the use of the security schemes as defined by + deployment MUST include the use of the security schemes as defined by IEEE 1901.2 (and IEEE 802.15.4). With IEEE 802.15.4 defining the security mechanisms to afford mutual authentication, access control (e.g. authorization) and transport confidentiality and integrity. The credential management is afforded through the use of already existing identity management solutions. 10. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. @@ -964,28 +936,60 @@ 11. Acknowledgements Matthew Gillmore, Laurent Toutain, Ruben Salazar, and Kazuya Monden were contributors and noted as authors in earlier drafts. The authors would also like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and comments of Jari Arkko, Dominique Barthel, Cedric Chauvenet, Yuichi Igarashi, Philip Levis, Jeorjeta Jetcheva, Nicolas Dejean, and JP Vasseur. 12. References - 12.1. 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, . + [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, + . + + [IEEE802.15.4] + "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local and + metropolitan area networks-- Specific requirements-- Part + 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical + Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal + Area Networks (WPANs)", IEEE Standard 802.15.4, September + 2006. + + [IEEE802.15.4e] + "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-- + Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- + WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", IEEE Standard + 802.15.4e, April 2012. + + [IEEE802.15.4g] + "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-- + Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- + WPANs) Amendment 3: Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications + for Low-Data-Rate, Wireless, Smart Metering Utility + Networks", IEEE Standard 802.15.4g, November 2012. + + [IEEE1901.2] + "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency (less than 500 kHz) + Narrowband Power Line Communications for Smart Grid + Applications", IEEE Standard 1901.2, December 2013. + 12.2. Informative references [RFC5673] Pister, K., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, DOI 10.17487/RFC5673, October 2009, . [RFC5867] Martocci, J., Ed., De Mil, P., Riou, N., and W. Vermeylen, "Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 5867, DOI 10.17487/RFC5867, June @@ -999,68 +1003,39 @@ [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 2014, . [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, . + [RFC7731] Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low-Power + and Lossy Networks (MPL)", RFC 7731, DOI 10.17487/RFC7731, + February 2016, . + [surveySG] Gungor, V., Sahin, D., Kocak, T., Ergut, S., Buccella, C., Cecati, C., and G. Hancke, "A Survey on Smart Grid Potential Applications and Communication Requirements", Feb 2013. - [IEEE802.15.4] - "IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local and - metropolitan area networks-- Specific requirements-- Part - 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical - Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate Wireless Personal - Area Networks (WPANs)", IEEE Standard 802.15.4, September - 2006. - - [IEEE802.15.4e] - "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-- - Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- - WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", IEEE Standard - 802.15.4e, April 2012. - - [IEEE802.15.4g] - "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-- - Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR- - WPANs) Amendment 3: Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications - for Low-Data-Rate, Wireless, Smart Metering Utility - Networks", IEEE Standard 802.15.4g, November 2012. - - [IEEE1901.2] - "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency (less than 500 kHz) - Narrowband Power Line Communications for Smart Grid - Applications", IEEE Standard 1901.2, December 2013. - [RFC5548] Dohler, M., Ed., Watteyne, T., Ed., Winter, T., Ed., and D. Barthel, Ed., "Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 5548, DOI 10.17487/RFC5548, May 2009, . [RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206, March 2011, . - [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, - . - [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, . [RFC6719] Gnawali, O. and P. Levis, "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function", RFC 6719, DOI 10.17487/RFC6719, September 2012, . @@ -1068,32 +1043,28 @@ [RFC6552] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012, . [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, . - [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] - Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power - and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle- - mcast-12 (work in progress), June 2015. - [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, . Authors' Addresses + Nancy Cam-Winget (editor) Cisco Systems 3550 Cisco Way San Jose, CA 95134 US Email: ncamwing@cisco.com Jonathan Hui Nest