draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-17.txt   draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-18.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: August 3, 2011 Corporate Technology Group, KT Expires: August 26, 2011 Corporate Technology Group, KT
K. Pister K. Pister
Dust Networks Dust Networks
N. Dejean N. Dejean
Coronis SAS Coronis SAS
D. Barthel D. Barthel
France Telecom Orange France Telecom Orange
January 30, 2011 February 22, 2011
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-17 draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-18
Abstract Abstract
Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have unique characteristics Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have unique characteristics
compared with traditional wired and ad-hoc networks that require the compared with traditional wired and ad-hoc networks that require the
specification of new routing metrics and constraints. By contrast specification of new routing metrics and constraints. By contrast
with typical Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing metrics using with typical Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing metrics using
hop counts or link metrics, this document specifies a set of link and hop counts or link metrics, this document specifies a set of link and
node routing metrics and constraints suitable to LLNs to be used by node routing metrics and constraints suitable to LLNs to be used by
the Routing for Low Power and lossy networks (RPL) routing protocol. the Routing for Low Power and lossy networks (RPL) routing protocol.
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 August 3, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
mechanism for the advertisement of routing metrics and constraints mechanism for the advertisement of routing metrics and constraints
used by RPL. Some RPL implementations may elect to adopt an used by RPL. Some RPL implementations may elect to adopt an
extremely simple approach based on the use of a single metric with no extremely simple approach based on the use of a single metric with no
constraint whereas other implementations may use a larger set of link constraint whereas other implementations may use a larger set of link
and node routing metrics and constraints. This specification and node routing metrics and constraints. This specification
provides a high degree of flexibility and a set of routing metrics provides a high degree of flexibility and a set of routing metrics
and constraints. New routing metrics and constraints could be and constraints. New routing metrics and constraints could be
defined in the future, as needed. defined in the future, as needed.
The metrics and constraints defined in this document are carried in The metrics and constraints defined in this document are carried in
objects that are OPTIONAL within RPL. This means that objects that are OPTIONAL from the point of view of a RPL
implementations are free to include different subsets of the implementation. This means that implementations are free to include
functions (metric, constraint) defined in this document. Specific different subsets of the functions (metric, constraint) defined in
sets of metrics/constraints and other optional RPL parameters for use this document. Specific sets of metrics/constraints and other
in key environments will be specified as compliance profiles in optional RPL parameters for use in key environments will be specified
applicability profile documents produced by the ROLL working group. as compliance profiles in applicability profile documents produced by
the ROLL working group. Note that RPL can even make use of no
metric, for example using the objective function defined in
[I-D.ietf-roll-of0].
RPL is a distance vector routing protocol variant that builds RPL is a distance vector routing protocol variant that builds
Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) based on routing metrics and Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) based on routing metrics and
constraints. DAG formation rules are defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]: constraints. DAG formation rules are defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]:
o The Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) root as o The Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) root as
defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] may advertise a routing constraint defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] may advertise a routing constraint
used as a "filter" to prune links and nodes that do not satisfy used as a "filter" to prune links and nodes that do not satisfy
specific properties. For example, it may be required for the path specific properties. For example, it may be required for the path
to only traverse nodes that are mains powered or links that have to only traverse nodes that are mains powered or links that have
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 28
Note that the routing metrics and constraints specified in this Note that the routing metrics and constraints specified in this
document are not specific to any particular link layer. An internal document are not specific to any particular link layer. An internal
API between the MAC layer and RPL may be used to accurately reflect API between the MAC layer and RPL may be used to accurately reflect
the metrics values of the link (wireless, wired, PLC). the metrics values of the link (wireless, wired, PLC).
Since a set of metrics and constraints will be used for links and Since a set of metrics and constraints will be used for links and
nodes in LLN, it is critical to ensure the use of consistent metric nodes in LLN, it is critical to ensure the use of consistent metric
calculation mechanisms for all links and nodes in the network, calculation mechanisms for all links and nodes in the network,
similarly to the case of inter-domain IP routing. similarly to the case of inter-domain IP routing.
There are many different permutations of options that may be
appropriate in different deployments. Implementations must clearly
state which options they include, and must state which are default
and which are configurable as options within the implementation.
Applicability statements will be developed within the ROLL working
group to clarify which options are applicable to the specific
deployment scenarios indicated by [RFC5673], [RFC5826] [RFC5548] and
[RFC5867].
2. Object Formats 2. Object Formats
2.1. DAG Metric Container Format 2.1. DAG Metric Container Format
Routing metrics and constraints are carried within the DAG Metric Routing metrics and constraints are carried within the DAG Metric
Container object defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. Should multiple Container object defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. Should multiple
metrics and/or constraints be present in the DAG Metric Container, metrics and/or constraints be present in the DAG Metric Container,
their use to determine the "best" path can be defined by an Objective their use to determine the "best" path can be defined by an Objective
Function. Function.
skipping to change at page 28, line 19 skipping to change at page 28, line 19
the security routing mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] the security routing mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
applies here. applies here.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Young Jae The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Young Jae
Kim, Hakjin Chong, David Meyer, Mischa Dohler, Anders Brandt, Philip Kim, Hakjin Chong, David Meyer, Mischa Dohler, Anders Brandt, Philip
Levis, Pascal Thubert, Richard Kelsey, Jonathan Hui, Alexandru Levis, Pascal Thubert, Richard Kelsey, Jonathan Hui, Alexandru
Petrescu, Richard Kelsey, Mathilde Durvy, Phoebus Chen, Tim Winter, Petrescu, Richard Kelsey, Mathilde Durvy, Phoebus Chen, Tim Winter,
Yoav Ben-Yehezkel, Matteo Paris, Omprakash Gnawali, Mads Westergreen, Yoav Ben-Yehezkel, Matteo Paris, Omprakash Gnawali, Mads Westergreen,
Mukul Goyal, Joseph Saloway and David Culler for their review and Mukul Goyal, Joseph Saloway, David Culler and Jari Arkko for their
valuable comments. Special thank to Adrian Farrel for his thourough review and valuable comments. Special thank to Adrian Farrel for his
review. thourough review.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative references 9.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J. Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J.
Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-17 (work in Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-18 (work in
progress), December 2010. progress), February 2011.
[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.
9.2. Informative references 9.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-roll-of0]
Thubert, P., "RPL Objective Function 0",
draft-ietf-roll-of0-05 (work in progress), January 2011.
[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-04 (work in Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-04 (work in
progress), September 2010.
[Khanna1989J A. Zinky, A. Khanna, and G. Vichniac. "Performance of [Khanna1989J A. Zinky, A. Khanna, and G. Vichniac. "Performance of
the Revised Routing Metric for ARPANET and MILNET. the Revised Routing Metric for ARPANET and MILNET.
Submitted to MILCOM 89, March 1989 Submitted to MILCOM 89, March 1989
progress), September 2010.
[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.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, September 1999. RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/