draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-09.txt   draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-10.txt 
ROLL R.-A. Koutsiamanis, Ed. ROLL R.-A. Koutsiamanis, Ed.
Internet-Draft G.Z. Papadopoulos Internet-Draft G.Z. Papadopoulos
Intended status: Standards Track N. Montavont Intended status: Standards Track N. Montavont
Expires: 30 March 2021 IMT Atlantique Expires: 2 May 2021 IMT Atlantique
P. Thubert P. Thubert
Cisco Cisco
26 September 2020 29 October 2020
Common Ancestor Objective Function and Parent Set DAG Metric Container Common Ancestor Objective Function and Parent Set DAG Metric Container
Extension Extension
draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-09 draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-10
Abstract Abstract
Packet Replication and Elimination is a method in which several Packet Replication and Elimination is a method in which several
copies of a data packet are sent in the network in order to achieve copies of a data packet are sent in the network in order to achieve
high reliability and low jitter. This document details how to apply high reliability and low jitter. This document details how to apply
Packet Replication and Elimination in RPL, especially how to exchange Packet Replication and Elimination in RPL, especially how to exchange
information within RPL control packets to let a node better select information within RPL control packets to let a node better select
the different parents that will be used to forward the multiple the different parents that will be used to forward the multiple
copies of a packet. This document also describes the Objective copies of a packet. This document also describes the Objective
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 30 March 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 May 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Common Ancestor Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Common Ancestor Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension . . . . 9 5. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension . . . . 9
5.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Controlling PRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Controlling PRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Choosing an AP selection policy . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix B. Choosing an AP selection policy . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Networks in the industrial context must provide stringent guarantees Networks in the industrial context must provide stringent guarantees
in terms of reliability and predictability, with this domain being in terms of reliability and predictability, with this domain being
one of main ones addressed by Deterministic Networking [RFC8557]. one of main ones addressed by Deterministic Networking [RFC8557].
Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) (Section 4.5.3 of Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) (Section 4.5.3 of
skipping to change at page 12, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 43
reporting a fake rank value in the DIO, thus masquerading as the reporting a fake rank value in the DIO, thus masquerading as the
DODAG root. DODAG root.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This proposal requests the allocation of a new value TBD1 from the This proposal requests the allocation of a new value TBD1 from the
"Objective Code Point (OCP)" sub-registry of the "Routing Protocol "Objective Code Point (OCP)" sub-registry of the "Routing Protocol
for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry. for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry.
This proposal also requests the allocation of a new value TBD2 for This proposal also requests the allocation of a new value TBD2 for
the "Parent Set" TLV from the Routing Metric/Constraint TLVs sub- the "Parent Set" TLV from the "Routing Metric/Constraint TLVs" sub-
registry from IANA. registry of the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks
(RPL) Routing Metric/Constraint" registry.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Dominique Barthel, Rahul Jadhav, Fabrice We are very grateful to Dominique Barthel, Rahul Jadhav, Fabrice
Theoleyre, Diego Dujovne, Derek Jianqiang Hou, and Michael Richardson Theoleyre, Diego Dujovne, Derek Jianqiang Hou, and Michael Richardson
for their comments, feedback, and support which lead to many for their comments, feedback, and support which lead to many
improvements to this document. We would also like to thank Tomas improvements to this document. We would also like to thank Tomas
Lagos Jenschke very much for helping in the implementation and Lagos Jenschke very much for helping in the implementation and
evaluation of the proposals of this document. evaluation of the proposals of this document.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Informative references 10.1. Normative references
[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>.
[RPL] 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>.
10.2. 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", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-29, 27 August 2020, draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-29, 27 August 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch- <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-
architecture-29>. architecture-29>.
[IEEE802154] [IEEE802154]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std. IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std.
skipping to change at page 13, line 48 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
[OF0] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing [OF0] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)",
RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012, RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8557] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem [RFC8557] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019, Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8557>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8557>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RPL] 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>.
Appendix A. Implementation Status Appendix A. Implementation Status
A research-stage implementation of the PRE mechanism using the A research-stage implementation of the PRE mechanism using the
proposed extension as part of a 6TiSCH IOT use case was developed at proposed extension as part of a 6TiSCH IOT use case was developed at
IMT Atlantique, France by Tomas Lagos Jenschke and Remous-Aris IMT Atlantique, France by Tomas Lagos Jenschke and Remous-Aris
Koutsiamanis. It was implemented on the open-source Contiki OS and Koutsiamanis. It was implemented on the open-source Contiki OS and
tested with the Cooja simulator. The DIO DAGMC NSA extension is tested with the Cooja simulator. The DIO DAGMC NSA extension is
implemented with a configurable number of parents from the parent set implemented with a configurable number of parents from the parent set
of a node to be reported. of a node to be reported.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
21 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/