draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-03.txt   draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-04.txt 
Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed. Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kim, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track M. Kim, Ed.
Expires: April 29, 2010 Future Tech Lab., Korea Telecom Expires: June 6, 2010 Future Tech Lab., Korea Telecom
K. Pister K. Pister
Dust Networks Dust Networks
H. Chong H. Chong
Future Tech Lab., Korea Telecom Future Tech Lab., Korea Telecom
October 26, 2009 December 3, 2009
Routing Metrics used for Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy Routing Metrics used for Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy
Networks Networks
draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-03 draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-04
Abstract
Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have unique characteristics
compared with traditional wired and ad-hoc networks that require the
specification of new routing metrics and constraints. By contrast
with typical Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing metrics using
hop counts or link metrics, this document specifies a set of link and
node routing metrics and constraints suitable to LLNs.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 8
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 6, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Abstract include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have unique characteristics described in the BSD License.
compared with traditional wired and ad-hoc networks that require the
specification of new routing metrics and constraints. By contrast
with typical Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing metrics using
hop counts or link metrics, this document specifies a set of link and
node routing metrics and constraints suitable to LLNs.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Node Metrics And Constraints Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Node Metrics And Constraints Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Node State And Attributes Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Node State And Attributes Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Node Energy Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Node Energy Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Hop-Count Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3. Hop-Count Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Link Metrics and Constraints Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Link Metrics and Constraints Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
skipping to change at page 3, line 33 skipping to change at page 3, line 33
5. Computation of Dynamic Metrics and Attributes . . . . . . . . 23 5. Computation of Dynamic Metrics and Attributes . . . . . . . . 23
6. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Other metric under consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.1. Other metric under consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Metric Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Metric Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. Routing Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.1. Routing Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Routing Object Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.2. Routing Object Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3. NSA Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.3. NSA Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.4. Hop-count Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.4. Hop-count Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.5. Objective Code Point (OCP) Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9.5. DAG Information Option (DIO) suboption for the OCP
Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.6. Objective Code Point (OCP) Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.3. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12.3. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document makes use of the terminology defined in This document makes use of the terminology defined in
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]. [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology].
Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have specific routing Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have specific routing
characteristics compared with traditional wired or ad-hoc networks characteristics compared with traditional wired or ad-hoc networks
that have been spelled out in [RFC5548], [RFC5673], that have been spelled out in [RFC5548], [RFC5673],
[I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs] and [I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs] and
skipping to change at page 23, line 40 skipping to change at page 23, line 40
The Objective Function (OF) is used by RPL to specify how the routing The Objective Function (OF) is used by RPL to specify how the routing
metric and constraints should be used to reach specific objectives. metric and constraints should be used to reach specific objectives.
For example, the OF may specify that the objective is to find the For example, the OF may specify that the objective is to find the
constrained shortest path where the constraint is related to the node constrained shortest path where the constraint is related to the node
power mode and the metric is the ETX (e.g. "Avoid battery operated power mode and the metric is the ETX (e.g. "Avoid battery operated
links and compute the path that optimizes reliability"). As links and compute the path that optimizes reliability"). As
specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl], the OF is used by a node to select specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl], the OF is used by a node to select
its parent during the DAG building construction process. its parent during the DAG building construction process.
The OCP object is used to specify the OF and is carried within the The OCP object is used to specify the OF and is carried as a sub-
DAG Metric Container object defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. option within the DIO Base Option object defined in
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
There MUST be a single instance of the OCP object within the DAG There MUST be a single instance of the OCP object within the sub-
Metric Container object. option field of the DIO Base option object.
0 1 2 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
| OCP | (TLVs) | OCP | (TLVs)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 19: OCP Object Format Figure 19: OCP Object Format
The OCP object is not preceded by the common header specified for the The OCP object suboption type is 5 (to be confirmed by IANA).
routing and metric objects.
The OCP object body may carry optional TLVs. No TLVs are currently The OCP object body may carry optional TLVs. No TLVs are currently
defined. defined.
OCP (Objective Code Point - 16 bits): the OCP field identifies the OF OCP (Objective Code Point - 16 bits): the OCP field identifies the OF
and is managed by IANA. and is managed by IANA.
7. Open Issues 7. Open Issues
Other items to be addressed in further revisions of this document Other items to be addressed in further revisions of this document
skipping to change at page 26, line 31 skipping to change at page 26, line 31
o Bit number o Bit number
o Capability Description o Capability Description
o Defining RFC o Defining RFC
Several bits are defined for the NSA Object flag field in this Several bits are defined for the NSA Object flag field in this
document. The following values have been assigned: document. The following values have been assigned:
Codespace of the Flag field (RP Object) Codespace of the Flag field (NSA Object)
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
14 Aggregator This document 14 Aggregator This document
15 Overloaded This document 15 Overloaded This document
9.4. Hop-count Object 9.4. Hop-count Object
IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the codespace of the IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the codespace of the
Flag field of the Hop-count Object. Flag field of the Hop-count Object.
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 5
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number o Bit number
o Capability Description o Capability Description
o Defining RFC o Defining RFC
No Flags are currently defined. No Flags are currently defined.
9.5. Objective Code Point (OCP) Object 9.5. DAG Information Option (DIO) suboption for the OCP Object
A new DAG Information Option (DIO) suboption is defined for the OCP
object.
DIO suboption for the OCP Object
Value Description Reference
5 OCP Value This document
9.6. Objective Code Point (OCP) Object
IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the codespace of the IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the codespace of the
OCP field of the OCP object. OCP field of the OCP object.
No OCP codepoints are defined in this specification. No OCP codepoints are defined in this specification.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
Routing metrics should be handled in a secure and trustful manner. Routing metrics should be handled in a secure and trustful manner.
For instance, a malicious node can not advertise falsely that it has For instance, a malicious node can not advertise falsely that it has
skipping to change at page 27, line 30 skipping to change at page 27, line 40
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Young Jae The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Young Jae
Kim, David Meyer, Mischa Dohler, Anders Brandt, Philip Levis, Pascal Kim, David Meyer, Mischa Dohler, Anders Brandt, Philip Levis, Pascal
Thubert, Richard Kelsey, Jonathan Hui, Phil Levis and Tim Winter for Thubert, Richard Kelsey, Jonathan Hui, Phil Levis and Tim Winter for
their review and comments. their review and comments.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
Winter, T., Thubert, P., and R. Team, "RPL: Routing
Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-03 (work in progress), October 2009.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs] [I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs]
Martocci, J., Riou, N., Mil, P., and W. Vermeylen, Martocci, J., Riou, N., Mil, P., and W. Vermeylen,
"Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and "Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07 Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07
(work in progress), September 2009. (work in progress), September 2009.
[I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs] [I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs]
Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Home Automation Routing
Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks", Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs-08 (work in progress), draft-ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs-09 (work in progress),
September 2009. November 2009.
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
Winter, T., Thubert, P., and R. Team, "RPL: IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-04 (work in progress), October 2009.
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology] [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-02 (work in Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-02 (work in
progress), October 2009. progress), October 2009.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37a. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/