Transmission of IPv6 Packets over PLC Networks
draft-hou-6lo-plc-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jianqiang Hou , Yong-Geun Hong , Xiaojun Tang | ||
| Last updated | 2017-10-30 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-6lo-plc, RFC 9354 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hou-6lo-plc-02
6Lo Working Group J. Hou
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended Status: Standards Track Y-G. Hong
Expires: May 3, 2018 ETRI
X. Tang
SGEPRI
October 30, 2017
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over PLC Networks
draft-hou-6lo-plc-02
Abstract
Power Line Communication (PLC), namely using the electric-power lines
for indoor and outdoor communications, has been widely applied to
support Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), especially the smart
meters for electricity. The inherent advantage of existing
electricity infrastructure facilitates the expansion of PLC
deployments, and moreover, a wide variety of accessible devices
raises the potential demand of IPv6 for future applications. As part
of this technology, Narrowband PLC (NBPLC) is focused on the low-
bandwidth and low-power scenarios that includes current standards
such as IEEE 1901.2 and ITU-T G.9903. This document describes how
IPv6 packets are transported over constrained PLC networks.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 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 May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
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
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. Requirements Notation and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of PLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Protocol Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Addressing Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Maximum Transmission Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Specification of IPv6 over Narrowband PLC . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. IPv6 Link Local Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Unicast Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.7. Extension at 6lo Adaptation Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Internet Connectivity Scenarios and Topologies . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The idea of using power lines for both electricity supply and
communication can be traced back to the beginning of the last
century. With the advantage of existing power grid, PLC is a good
candidate for supporting various service scenarios such as in houses
and offices, in trains and vehicles, in smart grid and advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI). Such applications cover the smart
meters for electricity, gas and water that share the common features
like fixed position, large quantity, low data rate, and long life
time.
Although PLC technology has an evolution history of several decades,
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
the adaptation of PLC for IPv6 based constrained networks is not
fully developed. The 6lo related scenarios lie in the low voltage
PLC networks with most applications in the area of Advanced Metering
Infrastructure, Vehicle-to-Grid communications, in-home energy
management and smart street lighting. It is of great importance to
deploy IPv6 for PLC devices for its large address space and quick
addressing. In addition, due to various existing PLC standards, a
comparison among them is needed to facilitate the selection of the
most applicable PLC standard in certain using scenarios.
The following sections provide a brief overview of PLC, then describe
transmission of IPv6 packets over PLC networks. The general approach
is to adapt elements of the 6LoWPAN specifications [RFC4944],
[RFC6282], and [RFC6775] to constrained PLC networks. Similar 6LoPLC
adaptation layer was previously proposed in [draft-popa-6lo-6loplc],
however, with the same purpose, this document provides more updated,
structured and instructive information for the deployment of IPv6
over PLC networks.
2. Requirements Notation and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
Below are the terms used in this document:
6LoWPAN: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
AMI: Advanced Metering Infrastructure
BBPLC: Broadband Power Line Communication
CID: Context ID
EV: Electric Vehicle
HDPLC: High Definition Power Line Communication
IID: Interface Identifier
IPHC: IP Header Compression
LAN: Local Area Network
LOADng: Lightweight On-demand Ad-hoc Distance-vector Routing Protocol
Next Generation
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
MSDU: MAC Service Data Unit
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit
NBPLC: Narrowband Power Line Communication
OFDM: Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
PCO: PAN Coordinator
PLC: Power Line Communication
PSDU: PHY Service Data Unit
RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
RA: Router Advertisement
WAN: Wide Area Network
3. Overview of PLC
PLC technology enables convenient two-way communications for home
users and utility companies to monitor and control electric plugged
devices such as electricity meters and street lights. Due to the
large range of communication frequencies, PLC is generally classified
into two categories: Narrowband PLC (NBPLC) for automation of
sensors, and Broadband PLC (BBPLC) for home and industry networking
applications. Various standards have been addressed on the MAC and
PHY layers for this communication technology, e.g. IEEE 1901 and ITU-
T G.hn for BBPLC (1.8-250 MHz), IEEE 1901.2, ITU-T G.9902 (G.hnem),
ITU-T G.9903 (G3-PLC) and ITU-T G.9904 (PRIME) for NBPLC (3-500 kHz)
and the recent proposal for the IEEE 1901.1 standard aiming at the
frequency band of 2-12 MHz.
Narrowband PLC is a very important branch of PLC technology due to
its low frequency band and low power cost. So far the recent PLC
standards, ITU-T G.9903 (G3-PLC) and IEEE 1901.2, are dominating as
two of the most robust schemes available. Different networking
methods exist in different NBPLC standards. There are 2 routing
algorithms used in PLC networks for AMI applications:
o LOADng (Lightweight On-demand Ad-hoc Distance-vector Routing
Protocol Next Generation) is a reactive protocol, operating in layer
2 or layer 3.
o RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is a
proactive protocol operating only in layer 3.
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
LOADng is supported in G.9903 and 1901.2. IEEE 1901.2 specifies
additionally Information Elements (IEs) which carry metrics from PHY
layer to IP layer and the IE content is user-defined. These IEs
enable RPL to be used as the routing algorithm in 1901.2 networks.
The IEEE 1901.1 WG is currently working on a new PLC standard, IEEE
1901.1, which focuses on the frequency band of 2-12 MHz [IEEE
1901.1]. This promising medium-frequency PLC standard, known as PLC-
IoT, is suitable for 6lo applications thus mentioned in this
document. Details on this standard is to be determined.
3.1. Protocol Stack
The protocol stack for IPv6 over PLC is illustrated in Figure 1 that
contains the following elements from bottom to top: PLC PHY Layer,
PLC MAC Layer, Adaptation layer for IPv6 over PLC, IPv6 Layer,
TCP/UDP Layer and Application Layer. The PLC MAC/PHY layer
corresponds to a certain PLC standard such as IEEE 1901.2 or ITU-T
G.9903. Details of the 6lo adaptation layer for PLC are illustrated
in section 4. Routing protocol like RPL on Network layer is optional
according to the specified PLC standard, e.g. IEEE 1901.2.
+----------------------------------------+
| Application Layer |
+----------------------------------------+
| TCP/UDP |
+----------------------------------------+
| |
| IPv6 |
| |
+----------------------------------------+
| Adaptation layer for IPv6 over PLC |
+----------------------------------------+
| PLC MAC Layer |
| (IEEE 1901.2 / ITU-T G.9903) |
+----------------------------------------+
| PLC PHY Layer |
| (IEEE 1901.2 / ITU-T G.9903) |
+----------------------------------------+
Figure 1: PLC Protocol Stack
3.2. Addressing Modes
Each PLC device has a globally unique 64-bit long address and a 16-
bit short address. The long address is set by manufacturers
according to the IEEE EUI-64 address. Each PLC device joins the
network by using the long address and communicates with other devices
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
by using the short address after joining the network.
3.3. Maximum Transmission Unit
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of MAC layer is an important
parameter that determines the applicability of fragmentation and
reassembly at the adaptation layer of IPv6 over PLC. An IPv6 packet
require that every link in the Internet have an MTU of 1280 octets or
greater, thus for a MAC layer with MTU lower than this limit,
fragmentation and reassembly at the adaptation layer are required.
The IEEE 1901.2 MAC layer supports the MTU of 1576 octets (the
original value 1280 byte was updated in 2015 [IEEE 1901.2a]). The
MTU for ITU-T G.9903 is 400 octets, insufficient for supporting
complete IPv6 packets. For this concern, fragmentation and
reassembly in [RFC4944] are enabled for the G.9903-based scenarios
(details can be found in section 4.2.6).
4. Specification of IPv6 over Narrowband PLC
Due to the narrow bandwidth and low data rate in NBPLC, a 6lo
adaptation layer is needed to support the transmission of IPv6
packets. 6LoWPAN standards [RFC4944], [RFC6775], and [RFC6282]
provides useful functionality including link-local IPv6 addresses,
stateless address auto-configuration, neighbor discovery and header
compression. These standards are referred in the specifications of
the 6lo adaptation layer which is illustrated in the following
subsections.
4.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
PLC devices perform stateless address autoconfiguration according to
[RFC4944] so as to obtain an IPv6 Interface Identifier (IID). The
64-bit IID is derived by insert 16-bit "FFEE" into a "pseudo 48-bit
address" which is formed by the 16-bit PAN ID, 16-bit zero and the
16-bit short address as follows:
16_bit_PAN:00FF:FE00:16_bit_short_address
Considering that this derived IID is not globally unique, the
"Universal/Local" (U/L) bit (7th bit) shall be set to zero.
4.2. IPv6 Link Local Address
The IPv6 link-local address [RFC4291] for a PLC interface is formed
by appending the Interface Identifier, as defined above, to the
prefix FE80::/64 (see Figure 2).
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
10 bits 54 bits 64 bits
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
|1111111010| (zeros) | Interface Identifier |
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
Figure 2: IPv6 Link Local Address in PLC
4.3. Unicast Address Mapping
The address resolution procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses
into PLC link-layer addresses follows the general description in
section 7.2 of [RFC4861], unless otherwise specified.
The Source/Target Link-layer Address option has the following form
and the addresses are 16-bit short addresses. Since the 64-bit long
address is only used in the joining process, no long address option
is included the unicast address mapping.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 16-bit short Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Padding |
+- -+
| (all zeros) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Unicast Address Mapping
Option fields:
Type: 1 for Source Link-layer address and 2 for Target Link-layer
address.
Length: This is the length of this option (including the type and
length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is 1
for the 16-bit PLC short addresses.
* Note that the format of Source/Target Link-layer Address option
illustrated in Figure 3 is not used when sending RS/RA in G.9903 PLC
networks. G.9903 specifies its SLLAO format for sending RS/RA.
Details can be found in the Annex E of [ITU-T G.9903]. This
inconsistency of SLLAO format has been informed to ITU-T SG15/Q15 and
will be solved in future.
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
4.4. Neighbor Discovery
* No detailed specification of IPv6 neighbor discovery is defined
in current PLC standards, and this section provides a guidance for
the use of [RFC6775] in PLC networks.
Neighbor Discovery Optimization for 6LoWPANs [RFC6775] describes the
neighbor discovery approach in several 6LoWPAN topologies including
the mesh topology. In the route-over RPL-based network, the neighbor
discovery process is recommended to refer to [RFC6775]. PLC devices
may follow Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of [RFC6775] for sending Router
Solicitations and processing Router Advertisements. Note that
although PLC devices are electrically powered, the sleeping mode is
still applicable for power saving. In addition, if DHCPv6 is used to
assign addresses, Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is not needed.
In the mesh-under LOADng-based network, since there is a defined PAN
bootstrapping protocol, the address registration defined in [RFC6775]
is not used. An implementation for mesh-under operation could use
[RFC6775] mechanisms for managing IPv6 prefixes and corresponding
header compression context information [RFC6282].
4.5. Header Compression
The compression of IPv6 datagrams within PLC MAC frames refers to
[RFC6282], which updates [RFC4944]. Header compression as defined in
[RFC6282] which specifies the compression format for IPv6 datagrams
on top of IEEE 802.15.4, is included in this document as the basis
for IPv6 header compression in PLC. For situations when PLC MAC MTU
cannot support the 1280-octet IPv6 packet, headers can be compressed
according to [RFC6282] encoding formats.
4.6. Fragmentation and Reassembly
PLC differs from other wired technologies in that the communication
medium is not shielded, thus to successfully transmit data through
power lines, PLC Data Link layer provides the functionality of
segmentation and reassembly. A Segment Control Field is defined in
the MAC frame header regardless of whether segmentation is required.
This process segments a MAC layer datagram into multiple fragments
and provides a reliable one-hop transfer of the resulting fragments.
To minimize redundant fragmentation and reassembly (FAR) on the 6lo
adaptation layer, similar functions defined in [RFC4944] should only
be used when necessary. This document gives a requirement of the use
of 6LoWPAN FAR in PLC networks as below:
* In PLC networks, if Layer-2 segmentation and reassembly is
supported while the MAC layer supports MTU size of 1280 octets or
greater, then 6LoWPAN fragmentation and reassembly as defined in
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
[RFC4944] is not needed and should not be used.
In IEEE 1901.2, since the MAC layer supports a payload of 1280
octets, which is the minimum MTU required by IPv6 packets, there is
no need of fragmentation for the IPv6 packet transmission, thus the
fragmentation and reassembly defined in [RFC4944] is not recommended
in the 6lo adaptation layer of IEEE 1901.2.
In ITU-T G.9903, the maximum MAC payload size is fixed to 400 octets,
so to cope with the required MTU of 1280 octets by IPv6,
fragmentation and reassembly at 6lo adaptation layer are provided
referring to [RFC4944].
4.7. Extension at 6lo Adaptation Layer
Apart from the 6lo headers specified in [RFC4944], an additional
Command Frame Header is defined for the mesh routing procedure in
LOADng protocol. Figure 4 illustrates the format of the Command
Frame Header [RFC8066]: The ESC dispatch type (01000000b) indicates
an ESC extension type follows (see [RFC4944] and [RFC6282]). Then
this 1-octet dispatch field is used as the Command Frame Header and
filled with the Command ID. The Command ID can be classified into 4
types:
- LOADng message (0x01)
- LoWPAN bootstrapping protocol message (0x02)
- Reserved by ITU-T (0x03-0x0F)
- CMSR protocol messages (0X10-0X1F)
The LOADng message is used to provide the default routing protocol
LOADng while the LoWPAN bootstrapping protocol message is for the
LoWPAN bootstrap procedure. The CMSR protocol messages are specified
for the Centralized metric-based source routing [ITU-T G.9905] which
is out of the scope of this draft.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ESC | Command ID | Command Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Command Frame Header Format of ITU-T G.9903
Command Frame Header appears in the last position if more than one
header is present in the 6LoWPAN frame [ITU-T G.9903]. On the other
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
hand, this Command Frame Header must appear before the LoWPAN_IPHC
dispatch type as per [RFC8066].
* Regarding the order of the command frame header, the
inconsistency between G.9903 and RFC8066 still exists and is being
solved in ITU-T SG15/Q15.
Following these two requirements of header order mentioned above, an
example of the header order is illustrated in Figure 5 including the
Fragmentation type, Fragmentation header, ESC dispatch type, ESC
Extension Type (Command ID), ESC Dispatch Payload (Command Payload),
LOWPAN_IPHC Dispatch Type, LOWPAN_IPHC header, and Payload.
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+---------------+------+
|F typ|F hdr| ESC | EET | EDP |Disptch|LOWPAN_IPHC hdr| Payld|
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+---------------+------+
Figure 5: A 6LoWPAN packet including the Command Frame Header
5. Internet Connectivity Scenarios and Topologies
The network model can be simplified to two kinds of network devices:
PAN Coordinator (PCO) and PAN Device. PCO is the coordinator of the
PLC subnet and can be seen as a master node while PAN Devices are
typically PLC meters and sensors. The IPv6 over PLC networks are
built as tree, mesh or star according to the specified using
scenarios. Every network requires at least one PCO to communicate
with each PAN Device. Note that the PLC topologies included in this
section are based on the logical connectivity, not physical links.
One common topology in the current PLC scenarios is star. In this
case, the communication at the link layer only takes place between a
PAN Device and a PCO. The PCO collects data (e.g. smart meter
reading) from different nodes, and then concentrates and uploads the
data through Ethernet or LPWAN (see Figure 6). The collected data is
transmitted by the smart meters through PLC, aggregated by a
concentrator, sent to the utility and then to a Meter Data Management
System for data storage, analysis and billing. Such topology has
been widely applied in the deployment of smart meters, especially in
apartment buildings.
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
PAN Device PAN Device
\ / +---------
\ / /
\ / +
\ / |
PAN Device ------ PCO ========== | Internet
/ \ |
/ \ +
/ \ \
/ \ +---------
PAN Device PAN Device
<---------------------->
PLC subnet
(IPv6 over PLC packet)
Figure 6: PLC Star Network connected to the Internet
Tree topology is used when the distance between a device A and PCO is
beyond the PLC allowed limit while there is another device B in
between able to communicate with both sides. Device B in this case
acts both as a PAN Device and a Proxy Coordinator. For this
scenario, the link layer communications take place between device A
and device B, and between device B and PCO. An example of PLC tree
network is depicted in Figure 7. This topology can be applied in the
smart street lighting, where the lights adjust the brightness to
reduce energy consumption while sensors are deployed on the street
lights to provide information such as light intensity, temperature,
humidity. Data transmission distance in the street lighting scenario
is normally above several kilometers thus the PLC tree network is
required. A more sophisticated AMI network may also be constructed
into the tree topology which as depicted in [RFC8036]. Tree topology
is suitable for the AMI scenarios that require large coverage but low
density, e.g. the deployment of smart meters in rural areas.
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
PAN Device
\ +---------
PAN Device \ /
\ \ +
\ \ |
PAN Device -- PCO ========== | Internet
/ / |
/ / +
PAN Device---PAN Device / \
/ +---------
PAN Device---PAN Device
<------------------------->
PLC subnet
(IPv6 over PLC packet)
Figure 7: PLC Tree Network connected to the Internet
Mesh networking in PLC is of great potential applications and has
been studied for several years. By connecting all nodes with their
neighbors in communication range (see Figure 8), mesh topology
dramatically enhances the communication efficiency and thus expands
the size of PLC networks. A simple use case is the smart home
scenario where the ON/OFF state of air conditioning is controlled by
the state of home lights (ON/OFF) and doors (OPEN/CLOSE). LOADng
enables direct pan device to pan devices (without being obliged to
get through the pan coordinator) which significantly improves
performances in typical use cases like charging station to electric
vehicle (EV) communications.
PAN Device---PAN Device
/ \ / \ +---------
/ \ / \ /
/ \ / \ +
/ \ / \ |
PAN Device--PAN Device---PCO ========== | Internet
\ / \ / |
\ / \ / +
\ / \ / \
\ / \ / +---------
PAN Device---PAN Device
<------------------------------->
PLC subnet
(IPv6 over PLC packet)
Figure 8: PLC Mesh Network connected to the Internet
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
7. Security Consideration
Due to the high accessibility of power grid, PLC might be susceptible
to eavesdropping within its communication coverage, e.g. one
apartment tenant may have the chance to monitor the other smart
meters in the same apartment building. For privacy consideration,
link layer security is guaranteed in every PLC technology.
8. Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the members of the IETF 6LoWPAN working group.
Great thanks to Samita Chakrabarti and Gabriel Montenegro for their
feedback and support in connecting the IEEE and ITU-T sides. Authors
thank Scott Mansfield, Ralph Droms, Pat Kinney for their guidance in
the liaison process. Authors wish to thank Stefano Galli, Thierry
Lys, Yizhou Li and Yuefeng Wu for their valuable comments and
contributions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IEEE 1901.2] IEEE-SA Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Low-
Frequency (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line
Communications for Smart Grid Applications", IEEE 1901.2,
October 2013,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1901.2-
2013.html>.
[ITU-T G.9903] International Telecommunication Union, "Narrowband
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing power line
communication transceivers for G3-PLC networks", ITU-T
G.9903, February 2014, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-
G.9903>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI
10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks",
RFC 4944, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
9.2. Informative References
[draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02] Sarikaya, B., Thubert, P. and M. Sethi,
"Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02, May 2017,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-02>.
[draft-popa-6lo-6loplc] Popa, D. and J.H. Hui, "6LoPLC: Transmission
of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1901.2 Narrowband Powerline
Communication Networks", draft-popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-over-
ieee19012-networks-00, March 2014,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-
over-ieee19012-networks-00>.
[draft-rashid-6lo-iid-assignment-03] Sangi, AR., Chen, M. and C.
Perkins, "Designating 6LBR for IID Assignment", draft-
rashid-6lo-iid-assignment-03, March 2017,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rashid-6lo-iid-
assignment-03>.
[IEEE 1901.1] IEEE-SA Standards Board, "Standard for Medium Frequency
(less than 15 MHz) Power Line Communications for Smart Grid
Applications", IEEE 1901.1, work in progress,
<http://sites.ieee.org/sagroups-1901-1>.
[IEEE 1901.2a] IEEE-SA Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Low-
Frequency (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line
Communications for Smart Grid Applications - Amendment 1",
IEEE 1901.2a, September 2015,
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1901.2a-
2015.html>.
[ITU-T G.9960] International Telecommunication Union, "Unified high-
speed wireline-based home networking transceivers - System
architecture and physical layer specification", ITU-T
G.9960, December 2011, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-
G.9960>.
[ITU-T G.9961] International Telecommunication Union, "Unified high-
speed wireline-based home networking transceivers - Data
link layer specification", ITU-T G.9961, June 2010,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9961>.
[RFC8036] Cam-Winget, N., Hui, J. and D. Popa, "Applicability
Statement for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
Networks (RPL) in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
Networks", RFC 8036, January 2017, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8036>.
[RFC8065] D. Thaler, " Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation-
Layer Mechanisms", RFC 8065, Februray 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8065>.
[RFC8066] Chakrabarti, S., Montenegro, G., Droms, R. and J. Woodyatt,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines", RFC
8066, Februray 2017, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8066>.
Authors' Addresses
Jianqiang Hou
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86 15852944235
Email: houjianqiang@huawei.com
Yong-Geun Hong
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon 305-700
Korea
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT IPv6 over PLC October 30, 2017
Phone: +82 42 860 6557
Email: yghong@etri.re.kr
Xiaojun Tang
State Grid Electric Power Research Institute
19 Chengxin Avenue
Nanjing 211106
China
Phone: +86-25-81098508
Email: itc@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn
Hou, et al Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 16]