--- 1/draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-03.txt 2019-07-08 03:13:15.017066616 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-04.txt 2019-07-08 03:13:15.053067518 -0700 @@ -1,107 +1,108 @@ ROLL R. Koutsiamanis, Ed. Internet-Draft G. Papadopoulos Intended status: Standards Track N. Montavont -Expires: December 30, 2019 IMT Atlantique +Expires: January 9, 2020 IMT Atlantique P. Thubert Cisco - June 28, 2019 + July 8, 2019 -RPL DAG Metric Container Node State and Attribute object type extension - draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-03 +Common Ancestor Objective Functions and Parent Set DAG Metric Container + Extension + draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-04 Abstract Implementing Packet Replication and Elimination from / to the RPL root requires the ability to forward copies of packets over different paths via different RPL parents. Selecting the appropriate parents to achieve ultra-low latency and jitter requires information about a node's parents. This document details what information needs to be transmitted and how it is encoded within a packet to enable this - functionality. + functionality. This document also describes Objective Functions + which take advantage of this information to implement multi-path + routing. 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 December 30, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020. 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Alternative Parent Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.1. Common Ancestor Strict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.2. Common Ancestor Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.4. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension . . . . 6 - 4.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4.2. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5. Controlling PRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.2. Other Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3. Common Ancestor Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1. Common Ancestor Strict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.2. Common Ancestor Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.4. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension . . . . 8 + 4.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Controlling PRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8.2. Other Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction Network-enabled applications in the industrial context must provide stringent guarantees in terms of reliability and predictability. To achieve this they typically leverage 1+1 redundancy, also known as Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs]. Allowing these kinds of applications to function over wireless networks requires the application of the principles of Deterministic Networking [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. This results in designs which aim at - maximizing packet delivery rate and minimizing latency and jitter. - Additionally, given that the network nodes often do not have an - unlimited power supply, energy consumption needs to be minimized as - well. + optimizing packet delivery rate and bounding latency. Additionally, + given that the network nodes often do not have an unlimited power + supply, energy consumption needs to be minimized as well. - As an example, to meet this goal, IEEE Std. 802.15.4 - [IEEE802154-2015] provides Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), a - mode of operation which uses a common communication schedule based on - timeslots to allow deterministic medium access as well as channel - hopping to work around radio interference. However, since TSCH uses - retransmissions in the event of a failed transmission, end-to-end - delay and jitter performance can deteriorate. + As an example, to meet this goal, IEEE Std. 802.15.4 [IEEE802154] + provides Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), a mode of operation + which uses a common communication schedule based on timeslots to + allow deterministic medium access as well as channel hopping to work + around radio interference. However, since TSCH uses retransmissions + in the event of a failed transmission, end-to-end delay and jitter + performance can deteriorate. Furthermore, the 6TiSCH working group, focusing on IPv6 over IEEE Std. 802.15.4-TSCH, has worked on the issues previously highlighted and produced the "6TiSCH Architecture" [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] to address that case. Building on this architecture, "Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs" [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] leverages PRE to improve the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), to provide a hard bound to the end-to- end latency, and to limit jitter. @@ -110,84 +111,166 @@ More specifically, PRE achieves controlled redundancy by laying multiple forwarding paths through the network and using them in parallel for different copies of a same packet. PRE can follow the Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) formed by RPL from a node to the root. Building a multi-path DODAG can be achieved based on the RPL capability of having multiple parents for each node in a network, a subset of which is used to forward packets. In order for this subset to be defined, a RPL parent subset selection mechanism, which is among the responsibilities of the RPL Objective Function (OF), needs to have specific path information. This - document focuses on the specification of the transmission of this - specific path information. + document describes OFs which implement multi-path routing for PRE and + specifies the transmission of this specific path information. - More concretely, this specification focuses on the extensions to the - DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] required for providing the PRE - mechanism a part of the information it needs to operate. This - information is the RPL [RFC6550] parent address set of a node and it - must be sent to potential children of the node. The RPL DIO Control - Message is the canonical way of broadcasting this kind of information - and therefore its DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] field is used to - append a Node State and Attribute (NSA) object. The node's parent - address set is stored as an optional TLV within the NSA object. This - specification defines the type value and structure for the parent - address set TLV. + For the OFs, this document specifies a group of OFs called Common + Ancestor (CA) OFs. A detailed description is made of how the path + information is used within the CA OF and how the subset of parents + for forwarding packets is selected. This specification defines new + Objective Code Points (OCPs) for these CA OFs. + + For the path information, this specification focuses on the + extensions to the DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] required for + providing the PRE mechanism a part of the information it needs to + operate. This information is the RPL [RFC6550] parent address set of + a node and it must be sent to potential children of the node. The + RPL DIO Control Message is the canonical way of broadcasting this + kind of information and therefore its DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] + field is used to append a Node State and Attribute (NSA) object. The + node's parent address set is stored as an optional TLV within the NSA + object. This specification defines the type value and structure for + the parent address set TLV. 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]. The draft uses the following Terminology: Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE): A method which transmits multiple copies of a packet using multi-path forwarding over a multi-hop network and which consolidates multiple received packet copies to control flooding. See "Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs" [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] for more details. Alternative Parent (AP) Selection: The mechanism for choosing the next hop node to forward a packet copy when replicating packets. -3. Alternative Parent Selection +3. Common Ancestor Objective Functions In the RPL protocol, each node maintains a list of potential parents. For PRE, the Preferred Parent (PP) node is defined to be the same as the RPL DODAG Preferred Parent node. Furthermore, to construct an alternative path toward the root, in addition to the PP node, each node in the network registers an AP node as well from its Parent Set - (PS). There are multiple alternative methods of selecting the AP - node. This functionality is included in the operation of the RPL - Objective Function (OF). A scheme which allows the two paths to - remain correlated is detailed here. More specifically, in this - scheme a node will select an AP node close to its PP node to allow - the operation of overhearing between parents. For more details about + (PS). + + There are multiple alternative methods of selecting the AP node. + This functionality is included in the operation of the RPL Objective + Function (OF). A group of OFs which allow the two paths to remain + correlated is detailed here. More specifically, when using these OFs + a node will select an AP node close to its PP node to allow the + operation of overhearing between parents. For more details about overhearing and its use in this context see Section 4.3. "Promiscuous Overhearing" in "Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs" [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs]. If multiple potential APs match this condition, the AP with the lowest rank will be registered. - There are at least three methods of performing the AP selection based - on common ancestors (CA), named Common Ancestor Strict, Common - Ancestor Medium, and Common Ancestor Relaxed, depending on how - restrictive the selection process is. A more restrictive method will - limit flooding but might fail to select an appropriate AP, while a - less restrictive one will more often find an appropriate AP but might - increase flooding. + The OFs described here are an extension of the The Minimum Rank with + Hysteresis Objective Function [RFC6719] (MRHOF) OF. In general, + these OFs extend MRHOF by specifying how an AP is selected. The + selection of the PP is kept the same as in MRHOF. + + The ways in which the CA OFs modify MRHOF in a section-by-section + manner follows: + + 3. The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function: Same as + MRHOF extended to AP selection. Minimum Rank path selection and + switching applies correspondingly to the AP with the extra CA + requirement of having some match between ancestors, depending on + the specific variant of CA OF used. + + 3.1. Computing the Path Cost: Same as MRHOF extended to AP + selection. If a candidate neighbor does not fulfill the CA + requirement then the path through that neighbor SHOULD be set to + MAX_PATH_COST. As a result, the node MUST NOT select the + candidate neighbor as its AP. + + 3.2. Parent Selection: Same as MRHOF extended to AP selection. To + allow hysteresis, AP selection maintains a variable, + cur_ap_min_path_cost, which is the path cost of the current AP. + + 3.2.1. When Parent Selection Runs: Same as MRHOF. + + 3.2.2. Parent Selection Algorithm: Same as MRHOF extended to AP + selection. If the smallest path cost for paths through the + candidate neighbors is smaller than cur_ap_min_path_cost by less + than PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, the node MAY continue to use the + current AP. Additionally, if there is no PP selected, there MUST + NOT be any AP selected as well. Finally, as with MRHOF, a node + MAY include up to PARENT_SET_SIZE-1 additional candidate neighbors + in its alternative parent set. + + 3.3. Computing Rank: Same as MRHOF. + + 3.4. Advertising the Path Cost: Same as MRHOF. + + 3.5. Working without Metric Containers: It is not possible to work + without metric containers, since CA AP selection requires + information from parents regarding their parent sets, which is + transmitted via the NSA object in the DIO Mectric Container. + + 4. Using MRHOF for Metric Maximization: Same as MRHOF. + + 5. MRHOF Variables and Parameters: Same as MRHOF extended to AP + selection. The CA OFs operate like MRHOF for AP selection by + maintaining separate: + + AP: Corresponding to the MRHOF PP. Hysteresis is configured for + AP with the same PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD parameter as in MRHOF. + The AP MUST NOT be the same as the PP. + + Alternative parent set: Corresponding to the MRHOF parent set. + The size is defined by the same PARENT_SET_SIZE parameter as in + MRHOF. The Alternative parent set MUST be a non-strict subset + of the parent set. + + cur_ap_min_path_cost: Corresponding to the MRHOF + cur_min_path_cost variable. To support the operation of the + hysteresis function for AP selection. + + 6. Manageability: Same as MRHOF. + + 6.1. Device Configuration: Same as MRHOF. + + 6.2. Device Monitoring: Same as MRHOF. + + Three OFs are defined which perform AP selection based on common + ancestors, named Common Ancestor Strict, Common Ancestor Medium, and + Common Ancestor Relaxed, depending on how restrictive the selection + process is. A more restrictive method will limit flooding but might + fail to select an appropriate AP, while a less restrictive one will + more often find an appropriate AP but might increase flooding. + + All three OFs apply their corresponding common ancestor criterion to + filter the list of candidate neighbours in the alternative parent + set. The AP is then selected from the alternative parent set based + on Rank and using hysteresis as is done for the PP in MRHOF. 3.1. Common Ancestor Strict - In CA Strict, the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent - (PGP), the PP of its PP, is the same as the PP of the potential AP. + In the CA Strict OF, represented with Objective Code Point (OCP) + TBD1, the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent (PGP), the PP + of its PP, is the same as the PP of the potential AP. ( R ) root . PS(S) = {A, B, C, D} . PP(S) = C . PP(PP(S)) = Y . PS(A) = {W, X} ( W ) ( X ) ( Y ) ( Z ) PP(A) = X ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^^^ ^ ^ ^^ | \ // | \ // || \ / || PS(B) = {W, X, Y} @@ -216,63 +299,62 @@ o Node B: PS(B) = Y and therefore it is equal to PP(PP(S)) o Node D: PS(D) = Z and therefore it is different than PP(PP(S)) node S can decide to use node B as its AP node, since PP(PP(S)) = Y = PP(B). 3.2. Common Ancestor Medium - In CA Medium, the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent - (PGP), the PP of its PP, is contained in the PS of the potential AP. + In the CA Medium OF, represented with Objective Code Point (OCP) + TBD2, the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent (PGP), the PP + of its PP, is contained in the PS of the potential AP. Using the same example, in Figure 1, the CA Medium parent selection method will select an AP for node S for which PP(PP(S)) is in PS(AP). Given that PP(PP(S)) = Y: o Node A: PS(A) = {W, X} and therefore PP(PP(S)) is not in the set o Node B: PS(B) = {W, X, Y} and therefore PP(PP(S)) is in the set o Node D: PS(D) = {Y, Z} and therefore PP(PP(S)) is in the set node S can decide to use node B or D as its AP node. 3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed - In CA Relaxed, the node will check if the Parent Set (PS) of its - Preferred Parent (PP) has a node in common with the PS of the - potential AP. + In the CA Relaxed OF, represented with Objective Code Point (OCP) + TBD3, the node will check if the Parent Set (PS) of its Preferred + Parent (PP) has a node in common with the PS of the potential AP. Using the same example, in Figure 1, the CA Relaxed parent selection method will select an AP for node S for which PS(PP(S)) has at least one node in common with PS(AP). Given that PS(PP(S)) = {X, Y, Z}: o Node A: PS(A) = {W, X} and the common nodes are {X} o Node B: PS(B) = {W, X, Y} and the common nodes are {X, Y} o Node D: PS(D) = {Y, Z} and the common nodes are {Y, Z} node S can decide to use node A, B or D as its AP node. 3.4. Usage The PS information can be used by any of the described AP selection methods or other ones not described here, depending on requirements. - This document does not suggest a specific AP selection method. - Additionally, it is optional for all nodes to use the same AP - selection method. Different nodes may use different AP selection - methods, since the selection method is local to each node. For - example, using different methods can be used to vary the transmission - reliability in each hop. + It is optional for all nodes to use the same AP selection method. + Different nodes may use different AP selection methods, since the + selection method is local to each node. For example, using different + methods can be used to vary the transmission reliability in each hop. 4. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension In order to select their AP node, nodes need to be aware of their grandparent node sets. Within RPL [RFC6550], the nodes use the DODAG Information Object (DIO) Control Message to broadcast information about themselves to potential children. However, RPL [RFC6550], does not define how to propagate parent set related information, which is what this document addresses. @@ -321,120 +403,84 @@ Metric Container data holds the actual data and is shown expanded in Figure 3. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Routing-MC-Type|Res Flags|P|C|O|R| A | Prec | Length (bytes)| |MC +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Res | Flags |A|O| PS type | PS Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |NSA - | 6LoRH type | 6LoRH-compressed PS IPv6 address(es) ... | + | PS IPv6 address(es) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: DAG Metric Container (MC) data with Node State and Attribute (NSA) object body and a TLV The structure of the DAG Metric Container data in the form of a Node State and Attribute (NSA) object with a TLV in the NSA Optional TLVs field is shown in Figure 3. The first 32 bits comprise the DAG Metric Container header and all the following bits are part of the Node State and Attribute object body, as defined in [RFC6551]. This document defines a new TLV, which CAN be carried in the Node State and Attribute (NSA) object Optional TLVs field. The TLV is named Parent Set and is abbreviated as PS in Figure 3. - PS type: The type of the Parent Set TLV. The value is TBD1. + PS type: The type of the Parent Set TLV. The value is TBD4. PS Length: The total length of the TLV value field (PS IPv6 address(es)) in bytes. - 6LoRH type: The type of 6LoRH compression applied to the PS IPv6 - addresses. For detailed usage see Section 5.1 of [RFC8138]. - As an overview, the compressed size of each IPv6 address in the - "6LoRH-compressed PS IPv6 address(es)" field depending on the - value of "6LoRH type" is shown in Figure 4. - - +-----------+----------------------+ - | 6LoRH | Length of compressed | - | Type | IPv6 address (bytes) | - +-----------+----------------------+ - | 0 | 1 | - | 1 | 2 | - | 2 | 4 | - | 3 | 8 | - | 4 | 16 | - +-----------+----------------------+ - - Figure 4: The SRH-6LoRH Types - - 6LoRH-compressed PS IPv6 address(es): A sequence of zero or more - IPv6 addresses belonging to a node's parent set. Each address - requires 16 bytes. The order of the parents in the parent set - is in decreasing preference based on the Objective Function - [RFC6550] used by the node. - 4.1. Usage The PS SHOULD be used in the process of parent selection, and especially in AP selection, since it can help the alternative path to not significantly deviate from the preferred path. The Parent Set is information local to the node that broadcasts it. The PS is used only within NSA objects configured as constraints and is used as per [RFC6551]. -4.2. Compression - - The PS IPv6 address(es) field in the Parent Set TLV add overhead due - to their size. Therefore, compression is highly desirable in order - for this extension to be usable. To meet this goal, a good - compression method candidate is [RFC8138] 6LoWPAN Routing Header - (6LoRH). Furthermore, the PS IPv6 address(es) belong by definition - to nodes in the same RPL DODAG and are stored in the form of a list - of addresses. This makes this field a good candidate for the use of - the same compression as in Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH), - achieving efficiency and implementation reuse. Therefore, the PS - IPv6 address(es) field SHOULD be compressed using the compression - method for Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) [RFC8138]. - 5. Controlling PRE PRE is very helpful when the aim is to increase reliability for a certain path, however its use creates additional traffic as part of the replication process. It is conceivable that not all paths have stringent reliability requirements. Therefore, a way to control whether PRE is applied to a path's packets SHOULD be implemented. For example, a traffic class label can be used to determine this - behaviour per flow type as described in Deterministic Networking + behavior per flow type as described in Deterministic Networking Architecture [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]. 6. Security Considerations The structure of the DIO control message is extended, within the pre- defined DIO options. Therefore, the security mechanisms defined in RPL [RFC6550] apply to this proposed extension. 7. IANA Considerations - This proposal requests the allocation of a new value TBD1 for the - "Parent Set" TLV in the Routing Metric/Constraint TLVs sub-registry + This proposal requests the allocation of new values TBD1, TBD2, TBD3 + from the "Objective Code Point (OCP)" sub-registry of the "Routing + Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry. This + proposal also requests the allocation of a new value TBD4 for the + "Parent Set" TLV from the Routing Metric/Constraint TLVs sub-registry from IANA. 8. References 8.1. Informative references [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode - of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-23 (work - in progress), June 2019. + of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-24 (work + in progress), July 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] Papadopoulos, G., Montavont, N., and P. Thubert, "Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs", draft-papadopoulos-6tisch-pre- @@ -451,30 +497,30 @@ 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, . - [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, - "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network - (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, - April 2017, . + [RFC6719] Gnawali, O. and P. Levis, "The Minimum Rank with + Hysteresis Objective Function", RFC 6719, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6719, September 2012, + . 8.2. Other Informative References - [IEEE802154-2015] + [IEEE802154] IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std - 802.15.4-2015 Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area + 802.15.4 Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", December 2015. 8.3. URIs [1] https://github.com/ariskou/contiki/tree/draft-koutsiamanis-roll- nsa-extension [2] https://code.wireshark.org/review/gitweb?p=wireshark.git;a=commit ;h=e2f6ba229f45d8ccae2a6405e0ef41f1e61da138 @@ -495,25 +541,25 @@ (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) ( S ) - Figure 5: Simulation Topology + Figure 4: Simulation Topology The simulation setup is: - Topology: 32 nodes structured in regular grid as show in Figure 5. + Topology: 32 nodes structured in regular grid as show in Figure 4. Node S (source) is the only data packet sender, and send data to node R (root). The parent set of each node (except R) is all the nodes in the immediately higher row, the immediately above 6 nodes. For example, each node in {51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56} is connected to all of {41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46}. Node 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 have a single upwards link to R. MAC: TSCH with 1 retransmission Platform: Cooja