6LoWPAN Selective Fragment Recovery
draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-17
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8931.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Pascal Thubert | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-18 (Latest revision 2020-03-09) | ||
| Replaces | draft-thubert-6lo-fragment-recovery | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-12)
by Peter Yee
Ready w/nits
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-11)
by Colin Perkins
Ready w/nits
GENART Last Call review
(of
-08)
by Peter Yee
Ready w/issues
IOTDIR Last Call review
(of
-07)
by Erik Nordmark
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Carles Gomez | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2019-10-23 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8931 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 7 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Suresh Krishnan | ||
| Send notices to | Carles Gomez <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | ||
| IANA expert review comments | The expert approved the registrations, but wrote, "One slight concern is that it registers not 1 or 2 codes, but 4. However, rfc8025 was created precisely because of this problem, as these registrations are limited to page 0 only." |
draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-17
6lo P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 4944 (if approved) 18 March 2020
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 19 September 2020
6LoWPAN Selective Fragment Recovery
draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-17
Abstract
This draft updates RFC 4944 with a simple protocol to recover
individual fragments across a route-over mesh network, with a minimal
flow control to protect the network against bloat.
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 19 September 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Other Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Updating RFC 4944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Extending draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Slack in the First Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Gap between frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Flow Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Modifying the First Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. New Dispatch types and headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Recoverable Fragment Dispatch type and Header . . . . . . 9
5.2. RFRAG Acknowledgment Dispatch type and Header . . . . . . 11
6. Fragment Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Forwarding Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.1. Receiving the first fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2. Receiving the next fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Receiving RFRAG Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. Aborting the Transmission of a Fragmented Packet . . . . 17
6.4. Applying Recoverable Fragmentation along a Diverse
Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. Observing the network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix B. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix C. Considerations on Flow Control . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
In most Low Power and Lossy Network (LLN) applications, the bulk of
the traffic consists of small chunks of data (on the order of a few
bytes to a few tens of bytes) at a time. Given that an IEEE Std.
802.15.4 [IEEE.802.15.4] frame can carry a payload of 74 bytes or
more, fragmentation is usually not required. However, and though
this happens only occasionally, a number of mission critical
applications do require the capability to transfer larger chunks of
data, for instance to support the firmware upgrade of the LLN nodes
or the extraction of logs from LLN nodes.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
In the former case, the large chunk of data is transferred to the LLN
node, whereas in the latter, the large chunk flows away from the LLN
node. In both cases, the size can be on the order of 10 kilobytes or
more and an end-to-end reliable transport is required.
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944]
defines the original 6LoWPAN datagram fragmentation mechanism for
LLNs. One critical issue with this original design is that routing
an IPv6 [RFC8200] packet across a route-over mesh requires the
reassembly of the packet at each hop. The "6TiSCH Architecture"
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] indicates that this may cause latency
along a path and impact critical resources such as memory and
battery; to alleviate those undesirable effects it recommends using a
6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding (6FF) technique .
"LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding" [FRAG-FWD] specifies the generic
behavior that all 6FF techniques including this specification follow,
and presents the associated caveats. In particular, the routing
information is fully indicated in the first fragment, which is always
forwarded first. With this specification, the first fragment is
identified by a Sequence of 0 as opposed to a dispatch type in
[RFC4944]. A state is formed and used to forward all the next
fragments along the same path. The Datagram_Tag is locally
significant to the Layer-2 source of the packet and is swapped at
each hop, more in Section 6. This specification encodes the
Datagram_Tag in one byte, which will saturate if more than 256
datagrams transit in fragmented form over a single hop at the same
time. This is not realistic at the time of this writing. Should
this happen in a new 6LoWPAN technology, a node will need to use
several Link-Layer addresses to increase its indexing capacity.
"Virtual reassembly buffers in 6LoWPAN" [LWIG-FRAG](VRB) proposes a
6FF technique that is compatible with [RFC4944] without the need to
define a new protocol. However, adding that capability alone to the
local implementation of the original 6LoWPAN fragmentation would not
address the inherent fragility of fragmentation (see [FRAG-ILE]) in
particular the issues of resources locked on the reassembling
endpoint and the wasted transmissions due to the loss of a single
fragment in a whole datagram. [Kent] compares the unreliable
delivery of fragments with a mechanism it calls "selective
acknowledgements" that recovers the loss of a fragment individually.
The paper illustrates the benefits that can be derived from such a
method in figures 1, 2 and 3, on pages 6 and 7. [RFC4944] has no
selective recovery and the whole datagram fails when one fragment is
not delivered to the reassembling endpoint. Constrained memory
resources are blocked on the reassembling endpoint until it times
out, possibly causing the loss of subsequent packets that cannot be
received for the lack of buffers.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
That problem is exacerbated when forwarding fragments over multiple
hops since a loss at an intermediate hop will not be discovered by
either the fragmenting and reassembling endpoints, and the source
will keep on sending fragments, wasting even more resources in the
network since the datagram cannot arrive in its entirety, and
possibly contributing to the condition that caused the loss.
[RFC4944] is also missing signaling to abort a multi-fragment
transmission at any time and from either end, and, if the capability
to forward fragments is implemented, clean up the related state in
the network. It is also lacking flow control capabilities to avoid
participating in congestion that may in turn cause the loss of a
fragment and potentially the retransmission of the full datagram.
This specification provides a method to forward fragments over
typically a few hops in a route-over 6LoWPAN mesh, and a selective
acknowledgment to recover individual fragments between 6LoWPAN
endpoints. The method can help limit the congestion loss in the
network and addresses the requirements in Appendix B. Deployments
are expected to be managed and homogeneous, and an incremental
transition requires a flag day.
2. Terminology
2.1. BCP 14
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. References
This document uses 6LoWPAN terms and concepts that are presented in
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919],
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944],
and "Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing" [RFC6606].
"LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding" [FRAG-FWD] discusses the generic
concept of a Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) and specifies behaviors
and caveats that are common to a large family of 6FF techniques
including the mechanism specified by this document, which fully
inherits from that specification. It also defines terms used in this
document: Compressed Form, Datagram_Tag, Datagram_Size,
Fragment_Offset, and 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding endpoint (commonly
abbreviated as only "endpoint").
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
Past experience with fragmentation has shown that misassociated or
lost fragments can lead to poor network behavior and, occasionally,
trouble at the application layer. The reader is encouraged to read
"IPv4 Reassembly Errors at High Data Rates" [RFC4963] and follow the
references for more information. That experience led to the
definition of "Path MTU discovery" [RFC8201] (PMTUD) protocol that
limits fragmentation over the Internet. Specifically in the case of
UDP, valuable additional information can be found in "UDP Usage
Guidelines for Application Designers" [RFC8085].
"The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)"
[RFC8087] provides useful information on the potential benefits and
pitfalls of using ECN.
Quoting the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Architecture"
[RFC3031]: with MPLS, 'packets are "labeled" before they are
forwarded' along a Label Switched Path (LSP). At subsequent hops,
there is no further analysis of the packet's network layer header.
Rather, the label is used as an index into a table which specifies
the next hop, and a new label". [FRAG-FWD] leverages MPLS to forward
fragments that actually do not have a network layer header, since the
fragmentation occurs below IP, and this specification makes it
reversible so the reverse path can be followed as well.
2.3. Other Terms
This specification uses the following terms:
RFRAG: Recoverable Fragment
RFRAG-ACK: Recoverable Fragment Acknowledgement
RFRAG Acknowledgment Request: An RFRAG with the Acknowledgement
Request flag ('X' flag) set.
NULL bitmap: Refers to a bitmap with all bits set to zero.
FULL bitmap: Refers to a bitmap with all bits set to one.
Reassembling endpoint: The receiving endpoint
Fragmenting endpoint: The sending endpoint
Forward direction: The direction of a path, which is followed by the
RFRAG.
Reverse direction: The reverse direction of a path, which is taken
by the RFRAG-ACK.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
3. Updating RFC 4944
This specification updates the fragmentation mechanism that is
specified in "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks" [RFC4944] for use in route-over LLNs by providing a model
where fragments can be forwarded end-to-end across a 6LoWPAN LLN, and
where fragments that are lost on the way can be recovered
individually. A new format for fragments is introduced and new
dispatch types are defined in Section 5.
[RFC8138] allows modifying the size of a packet en route by removing
the consumed hops in a compressed Routing Header. This requires that
Fragment_Offset and Datagram_Size (see Section 2.3) are also modified
en route, which is difficult to do in the uncompressed form. This
specification expresses those fields in the Compressed Form and
allows modifying them en route (see Section 4.4) easily.
Consistently with Section 2 of [RFC6282], for the fragmentation
mechanism described in Section 5.3 of [RFC4944], any header that
cannot fit within the first fragment MUST NOT be compressed when
using the fragmentation mechanism described in this specification.
4. Extending draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment
This specification implements the generic 6FF technique defined in
"LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding" [FRAG-FWD], provides end-to-end
fragment recovery and mechanisms that can be used for flow control.
4.1. Slack in the First Fragment
[FRAG-FWD] allows for refragmenting in intermediate nodes, meaning
that some bytes from a given fragment may be left in the VRB to be
added to the next fragment. The need for more space in the outgoing
fragment than was needed for the incoming fragment arises when the
6LoWPAN Header Compression is not as efficient on the outgoing link
or the Link MTU is reduced.
This specification cannot allow such a refragmentation operation
since the fragments are recovered end-to-end based on a sequence
number. The Fragment_Size MUST be tailored to fit the minimal MTU
along the path, and the first fragment that contains a 6LoWPAN-
compressed header MUST have enough slack to enable a less efficient
compression in the next hops to still fits within the Link MTU. If
the fragmenting endpoint is also the 6LoWPAN compression endpoint, it
will elide the IID of the source IPv6 address if it matches the Link-
Layer address [RFC6282]. In a network with a consistent MTU, it MUST
compute the Fragment_Size as if the MTU was 8 bytes less, so the next
hop can expand the IID within the same fragment.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
4.2. Gap between frames
[FRAG-FWD] requires that a configurable interval of time is inserted
between transmissions to the same next hop and in particular between
fragments of a same datagram. In the case of half duplex interfaces,
this inter-frame gap ensures that the next hop is done forwarding the
previous frame and is capable of receiving the next one.
In the case of a mesh operating at a single frequency with
omnidirectional antennas, a larger inter-frame gap is required to
protect the frame against hidden terminal collisions with the
previous frame of the same flow that is still progressing along a
common path.
The inter-frame gap is useful even for unfragmented datagrams, but it
becomes a necessity for fragments that are typically generated in a
fast sequence and are all sent over the exact same path.
4.3. Flow Control
The inter-frame gap is the only protection that [FRAG-FWD] imposes by
default. This document enables to group fragments in windows and
request intermediate acknowledgements so the number of in-flight
fragments can be bounded. This document also adds an ECN mechanism
that can be used to adapt the size of the window, the size of the
fragments, and/or the inter-frame gap to protect the network.
This specification enables the fragmenting endpoint to apply a flow
control mechanism to tune those parameters, but the mechanism itself
is out of scope. In most cases, the expectation is that most
datagrams will require only a few fragments, and that only the last
fragment will be acknowledged. A basic implementation of the
fragmenting endpoint is NOT REQUIRED to vary the size of the window,
the duration of the inter-frame gap or the size of a fragment in the
middle of the transmission of a datagram, and it MAY ignore the ECN
signal or simply reset the window to 1 (see Appendix C for more)
until the end of this datagram upon detecting a congestion.
An intermediate node that experiences a congestion MAY set the ECN
bit in a fragment, and the reassembling endpoint echoes the ECN bit
at most once at the next opportunity to acknowledge back.
The size of the fragments is typically computed from the Link MTU to
maximize the size of the resulting frames. The size of the window
and the duration of the inter-frame gap SHOULD be configurable, to
roughly adapt the size of the window to the number of hops in an
average path, and to follow the general recommendations in
[FRAG-FWD], respectively.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
4.4. Modifying the First Fragment
The compression of the Hop Limit, of the source and destination
addresses in the IPv6 Header, and of the Routing Header may change en
route in a Route-Over mesh LLN. If the size of the first fragment is
modified, then the intermediate node MUST adapt the Datagram_Size,
encoded in the Fragment_Size field, to reflect that difference.
The intermediate node MUST also save the difference of Datagram_Size
of the first fragment in the VRB and add it to the Fragment_Offset of
all the subsequent fragments that it forwards for that datagram.
5. New Dispatch types and headers
This document specifies an alternative to the 6LoWPAN fragmentation
sublayer [RFC4944] to emulate an Link MTU up to 2048 bytes for the
upper layer, which can be the 6LoWPAN Header Compression sublayer
that is defined in the "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams"
[RFC6282] specification. This specification also provides a reliable
transmission of the fragments over a multihop 6LoWPAN route-over mesh
network and a minimal flow control to reduce the chances of
congestion loss.
A 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding [FRAG-FWD] technique derived from MPLS
enables the forwarding of individual fragments across a 6LoWPAN
route-over mesh without reassembly at each hop. The Datagram_Tag is
used as a label; it is locally unique to the node that owns the
source Link-Layer address of the fragment, so together the Link-Layer
address and the label can identify the fragment globally within the
lifetime of the datagram. A node may build the Datagram_Tag in its
own locally-significant way, as long as the chosen Datagram_Tag stays
unique to the particular datagram for its lifetime. The result is
that the label does not need to be globally unique but also that it
must be swapped at each hop as the source Link-Layer address changes.
In the following sections, a "Datagram_Tag" extends the semantics
defined in [RFC4944] Section 5.3."Fragmentation Type and Header".
The Datagram_Tag is a locally unique identifier for the datagram from
the perspective of the sender. This means that the Datagram_Tag
identifies a datagram uniquely in the network when associated with
the source of the datagram. As the datagram gets forwarded, the
source changes and the Datagram_Tag must be swapped as detailed in
[FRAG-FWD].
This specification extends RFC 4944 [RFC4944] with 2 new Dispatch
types, for Recoverable Fragment (RFRAG) and for the RFRAG
Acknowledgment back. The new 6LoWPAN Dispatch types are taken from
Page 0 [RFC8025] as indicated in Table 1 in Section 9.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
5.1. Recoverable Fragment Dispatch type and Header
In this specification, if the packet is compressed then the size and
offset of the fragments are expressed with respect to the Compressed
Form of the packet form as opposed to the uncompressed (native) form.
The format of the fragment header is shown in Figure 1. It is the
same for all fragments though the Fragment_Offset is overloaded. The
format has a length and an offset, as well as a Sequence field. This
would be redundant if the offset was computed as the product of the
Sequence by the length, but this is not the case. The position of a
fragment in the reassembly buffer is neither correlated with the
value of the Sequence field nor with the order in which the fragments
are received. This enables refragmenting to cope with an MTU
deduction, see the example of the fragment seq. 5 that is retried
end-to-end as smaller fragments seq. 13 and 14 in Section 6.2.
The first fragment is recognized by a Sequence of 0; it carries its
Fragment_Size and the Datagram_Size of the compressed packet before
it is fragmented, whereas the other fragments carry their
Fragment_Size and Fragment_Offset. The last fragment for a datagram
is recognized when its Fragment_Offset and its Fragment_Size add up
to the stored Datagram_Size of the packet identified by the sender
Link-Layer address and the Datagram_Tag.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 0 1 0 0|E| Datagram_Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Sequence| Fragment_Size | Fragment_Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
X set == Ack-Request
Figure 1: RFRAG Dispatch type and Header
X: 1 bit; Ack-Request: when set, the fragmenting endpoint requires
anLink-layer RFRAG Acknowledgment from the reassembling endpoint.
E: 1 bit; Explicit Congestion Notification; the "E" flag is cleared
by the source of the fragment and set by intermediate routers to
signal that this fragment experienced congestion along its path.
Fragment_Size: 10-bit unsigned integer; the size of this fragment in
a unit that depends on the Link-Layer technology. Unless
overridden by a more specific specification, that unit is the
byte, which allows fragments up to 1024 bytes.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
Datagram_Tag: 8 bits; an identifier of the datagram that is locally
unique to the Link-Layer sender.
Sequence: 5-bit unsigned integer; the sequence number of the
fragment in the acknowledgement bitmap. Fragments are numbered
[0..N] where N is in [0..31]. A Sequence of 0 indicates the first
fragment in a datagram, but non-zero values are not indicative of
the position in the reassembly buffer.
Fragment_Offset: 16-bit unsigned integer.
When the Fragment_Offset is set to a non-0 value, its semantics
depend on the value of the Sequence field as follows:
* For a first fragment (i.e., with a Sequence of 0), this field
indicates the Datagram_Size of the compressed datagram, to help
the reassembling endpoint allocate an adapted buffer for the
reception and reassembly operations. The fragment may be
stored for local reassembly. Alternatively, it may be routed
based on the destination IPv6 address. In that case, a VRB
state must be installed as described in Section 6.1.1.
* When the Sequence is not 0, this field indicates the offset of
the fragment in the Compressed Form of the datagram. The
fragment may be added to a local reassembly buffer or forwarded
based on an existing VRB as described in Section 6.1.2.
A Fragment_Offset that is set to a value of 0 indicates an abort
condition and all state regarding the datagram should be cleaned
up once the processing of the fragment is complete; the processing
of the fragment depends on whether there is a VRB already
established for this datagram, and the next hop is still
reachable:
* if a VRB already exists and the next hop is still reachable,
the fragment is to be forwarded along the associated Label
Switched Path (LSP) as described in Section 6.1.2, without
checking the value of the Sequence field;
* else, if the Sequence is 0, then the fragment is to be routed
as described in Section 6.1.1, but no state is conserved
afterwards. In that case, the session if it exists is aborted
and the packet is also forwarded in an attempt to clean up the
next hops along the path indicated by the IPv6 header (possibly
including a routing header).
* else (the Sequence is nonzero and either no VRB exists or the
next hop is unavailable), the fragment cannot be forwarded or
routed; the fragment is discarded and an abort RFRAG-ACK is
sent back to the source as described in Section 6.1.2.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
There is no requirement on the reassembling endpoint to check that
the received fragments are consecutive and non-overlapping. The
fragmenting endpoint knows that the datagram is fully received when
the acknowledged fragments cover the whole datagram, which is always
the case with a FULL bitmap. This may be useful in particular in the
case where the MTU changes and a fragment Sequence is retried with a
smaller Fragment_Size, the remainder of the original fragment being
retried with new Sequence values.
Recoverable Fragments are sequenced and a bitmap is used in the RFRAG
Acknowledgment to indicate the received fragments by setting the
individual bits that correspond to their sequence.
5.2. RFRAG Acknowledgment Dispatch type and Header
This specification also defines a 4-byte RFRAG Acknowledgment bitmap
that is used by the reassembling endpoint to confirm selectively the
reception of individual fragments. A given offset in the bitmap maps
one-to-one with a given sequence number and indicates which fragment
is acknowledged as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^
| | bitmap indicating whether:
| +----- Fragment with Sequence 9 was received
+----------------------- Fragment with Sequence 0 was received
Figure 2: RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap Encoding
Figure 3 shows an example Acknowledgment bitmap which indicates that
all fragments from Sequence 0 to 20 were received, except for
fragments 1, 2 and 16 were lost and must be retried.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0|0|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Example RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap
The RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap is included in an RFRAG
Acknowledgment header, as follows:
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 1 1 0 1 0 1|E| Datagram_Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: RFRAG Acknowledgment Dispatch type and Header
E: 1 bit; Explicit Congestion Notification Echo
When set, the fragmenting endpoint indicates that at least one of
the acknowledged fragments was received with an Explicit
Congestion Notification, indicating that the path followed by the
fragments is subject to congestion. More in Appendix C.
Datagram_Tag: 8 bits; an identifier of the datagram that is locally
unique to the Link-Layer recipient.
RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap: An RFRAG Acknowledgment Bitmap, whereby
setting the bit at offset x indicates that fragment x was
received, as shown in Figure 2. A NULL bitmap indicates that the
fragmentation process is aborted. A FULL bitmap indicates that
the fragmentation process is complete; all fragments were received
at the reassembly endpoint.
6. Fragment Recovery
The Recoverable Fragment header RFRAG is used to transport a fragment
and optionally request an RFRAG Acknowledgment that will confirm the
good reception of one or more fragments. An RFRAG Acknowledgment is
carried as a standalone fragment header (i.e., with no 6LoWPAN
payload) in a message that is propagated back to the fragmenting
endpoint. To achieve this, each hop that performed an MPLS-like
operation on fragments reverses that operation for the RFRAG_ACK by
sending a frame from the next hop to the previous hop as known by its
Link-Layer address in the VRB. The Datagram_Tag in the RFRAG_ACK is
unique to the reassembling endpoint and is enough information for an
intermediate hop to locate the VRB that contains the Datagram_Tag
used by the previous hop and the Layer-2 information associated with
it (interface and Link-Layer address).
The fragmenting endpoint that fragments the packets at the 6LoWPAN
level also controls the number of acknowledgments by setting the Ack-
Request flag in the RFRAG packets. The fragmenting endpoint may set
the Ack-Request flag on any fragment to perform congestion control by
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
limiting the number of outstanding fragments, which are the fragments
that have been sent but for which reception or loss was not
positively confirmed by the reassembling endpoint. The maximum
number of outstanding fragments is controlled by the Window-Size. It
is configurable and may vary in case of ECN notification. When the
endpoint that reassembles the packets at the 6LoWPAN level receives a
fragment with the Ack-Request flag set, it MUST send an RFRAG
Acknowledgment back to the originator to confirm reception of all the
fragments it has received so far.
The Ack-Request ('X') set in an RFRAG marks the end of a window.
This flag MUST be set on the last fragment if the fragmenting
endpoint wishes to perform an automatic repeat request (ARQ) process
for the datagram, and it MAY be set in any intermediate fragment for
the purpose of flow control.
This ARQ process MUST be protected by a Retransmission Time Out (RTO)
timer, and the fragment that carries the 'X' flag MAY be retried upon
a time out for a configurable number of times (see Section 7.1) with
an exponential backoff. Upon exhaustion of the retries the
fragmenting endpoint may either abort the transmission of the
datagram or resend the first fragment with an 'X' flag set in order
to establish a new path for the datagram and obtain the list of
fragments that were received over the old path in the acknowledgment
bitmap. When the knows that an underlying link-layer mechanism
protects the fragments, it may refrain from using the RFRAG
Acknowledgment mechanism, and never set the Ack-Request bit.
The reassembling endpoint MAY issue unsolicited acknowledgments. An
unsolicited acknowledgment signals to the fragmenting endpoint that
it can resume sending in case it has reached its maximum number of
outstanding fragments. Another use is to inform the fragmenting
endpoint that the reassembling endpoint aborted the processing of an
individual datagram.
The RFRAG Acknowledgment carries an ECN indication for flow control
(see Appendix C). The reassembling endpoint of a fragment with the
'E' (ECN) flag set MUST echo that information at most once by setting
the 'E' (ECN) flag in the next RFRAG Acknowledgment.
In order to protect the datagram, the fragmenting endpoint transfers
a controlled number of fragments and flags the last fragment of a
window with an RFRAG Acknowledgment Request. The reassembling
endpoint MUST acknowledge a fragment with the acknowledgment request
bit set. If any fragment immediately preceding an acknowledgment
request is still missing, the reassembling endpoint MAY intentionally
delay its acknowledgment to allow in-transit fragments to arrive.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
Because it might defeat the round-trip delay computation, delaying
the acknowledgment should be configurable and not enabled by default.
When enough fragments are received to cover the whole datagram, the
reassembling endpoint reconstructs the packet, passes it to the upper
layer, sends an RFRAG Acknowledgment on the reverse path with a FULL
bitmap, and arms a short timer, e.g., on the order of an average
round-trip delay in the network. The FULL bitmap is used as opposed
to a bitmap that acknowledges only the received fragments to let the
intermediate nodes know that the datagram is fully received. As the
timer runs, the reassembling endpoint absorbs the fragments that were
still in flight for that datagram without creating a new state,
acknowledging the ones that that bear an Ack-Request with an FRAG
Acknowledgment and the FULL bitmap. The reassembling endpoint aborts
the communication if fragments with matching source and Datagram-Tag
continue to be received after the timer expires.
Note that acknowledgments might consume precious resources so the use
of unsolicited acknowledgments SHOULD be configurable and not enabled
by default.
An observation is that streamlining forwarding of fragments generally
reduces the latency over the LLN mesh, providing room for retries
within existing upper-layer reliability mechanisms. The fragmenting
endpoint protects the transmission over the LLN mesh with a retry
timer that is configured for a use case and may be adapted
dynamically, e.g., according to the method detailed in [RFC6298]. It
is expected that the upper layer retries obey the recommendations in
[RFC8085], in which case a single round of fragment recovery should
fit within the upper layer recovery timers.
Fragments MUST be sent in a round-robin fashion: the sender MUST send
all the fragments for a first time before it retries any lost
fragment; lost fragments MUST be retried in sequence, oldest first.
This mechanism enables the receiver to acknowledge fragments that
were delayed in the network before they are retried.
When a single radio frequency is used by contiguous hops, the
fragmenting endpoint SHOULD insert a delay between the frames (e.g.,
carrying fragments) that are sent to the same next hop. The delay
SHOULD cover multiple transmissions so as to let a frame progress a
few hops and avoid hidden terminal issues. This precaution is not
required on channel hopping technologies such as Time Slotted Channel
Hopping (TSCH) [RFC6554], where nodes that communicate at Layer-2 are
scheduled to send and receive respectively, and different hops
operate on different channels.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
6.1. Forwarding Fragments
This specification inherits from [FRAG-FWD] and proposes a Virtual
Reassembly technique to forward fragments with no intermediate
reconstruction of the entire datagram.
The IPv6 Header MUST be placed in full in the first fragment to
enable the routing decision. The first fragment is routed and
creates an LSP from the fragmenting endpoint to the reassembling
endpoint. The next fragments are label-switched along that LSP. As
a consequence, the next fragments can only follow the path that was
set up by the first fragment and cannot follow an alternate route.
The Datagram_Tag is used to carry the label, which is swapped in each
hop.
If the first fragment is too large for the path MTU, it will
repeatedly fail and never establish an LSP. In that case, the
fragmenting endpoint MAY retry the same datagram with a smaller
Fragment_Size, in which case it MUST abort the original attempt and
use a new Datagram_Tag for the new attempt.
6.1.1. Receiving the first fragment
In Route-Over mode, the source and destination Link-Layer addresses
in a frame change at each hop. The label that is formed and placed
in the Datagram_Tag by the sender is associated with the source Link-
Layer address and only valid (and temporarily unique) for that source
Link-Layer address.
Upon receiving the first fragment (i.e., with a Sequence of 0), an
intermediate router creates a VRB and the associated LSP state
indexed by the incoming interface, the previous-hop Link-Layer
address, and the Datagram_Tag, and forwards the fragment along the
IPv6 route that matches the destination IPv6 address in the IPv6
header until it reaches the reassembling endpoint, as prescribed by
[FRAG-FWD]. The LSP state enables to match the next incoming
fragments of a datagram to the abstract forwarding information of
next interface, source and next-hop Link-Layer addresses, and swapped
Datagram_Tag.
In addition, the router also forms a reverse LSP state indexed by the
interface to the next hop, the Link-Layer address the router uses as
source for that datagram, and the swapped Datagram_Tag. This reverse
LSP state enables matching the tuple (interface, destination Link-
Layer address, Datagram_Tag) found in an RFRAG Acknowledgment to the
abstract forwarding information (previous interface, previous Link-
Layer address, Datagram_Tag) used to forward the Fragment
Acknowledgment (RFRAG-ACK) back to the fragmenting endpoint.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
6.1.2. Receiving the next fragments
Upon receiving the next fragment (i.e., with a non-zero Sequence), an
intermediate router looks up a LSP indexed by the tuple (incoming
interface, previous-hop Link-Layer address, Datagram_Tag) found in
the fragment. If it is found, the router forwards the fragment using
the associated VRB as prescribed by [FRAG-FWD].
If the VRB for the tuple is not found, the router builds an RFRAG-ACK
to abort the transmission of the packet. The resulting message has
the following information:
* The source and destination Link-Layer addresses are swapped from
those found in the fragment and the same interface is used
* The Datagram_Tag is set to the Datagram_Tag found in the fragment
* A NULL bitmap is used to signal the abort condition
At this point the router is all set and can send the RFRAG-ACK back
to the previous router. The RFRAG-ACK should normally be forwarded
all the way to the source using the reverse LSP state in the VRBs in
the intermediate routers as described in the next section.
[FRAG-FWD] indicates that the reassembling endpoint stores "the
actual packet data from the fragments received so far, in a form that
makes it possible to detect when the whole packet has been received
and can be processed or forwarded". How this is computed is
implementation specific but relies on receiving all the bytes up to
the Datagram_Size indicated in the first fragment. An implementation
may receive overlapping fragments as the result of retries after an
MTU change.
6.2. Receiving RFRAG Acknowledgments
Upon receipt of an RFRAG-ACK, the router looks up a reverse LSP
indexed by the interface and destination Link-Layer address of the
received frame and the received Datagram_Tag in the RFRAG-ACK. If it
is found, the router forwards the fragment using the associated VRB
as prescribed by [FRAG-FWD], but using the reverse LSP so that the
RFRAG-ACK flows back to the fragmenting endpoint.
If the reverse LSP is not found, the router MUST silently drop the
RFRAG-ACK message.
Either way, if the RFRAG-ACK indicates that the fragment was entirely
received (FULL bitmap), it arms a short timer, and upon timeout, the
VRB and all the associated state are destroyed. Until the timer
elapses, fragments of that datagram may still be received, e.g. if
the RFRAG-ACK was lost on the path back and the source retried the
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
last fragment. In that case, the router generates an RFRAG-ACK with
a FULL bitmap back to the fragmenting endpoint if an acknowledgement
was requested, else it silently drops the fragment.
This specification does not provide a method to discover the number
of hops or the minimal value of MTU along those hops. In a typical
case, the MTU is constant and the same across the network. But
should the minimal MTU along the path decrease, it is possible to
retry a long fragment (say Sequence of 5) with several shorter
fragments with a Sequence that was not used before (e.g., 13 and 14).
Fragment 5 is marked as abandoned and will not be retried anymore.
Note that when this mechanism is in place, it is hard to predict the
total number of fragments that will be needed or the final shape of
the bitmap that would cover the whole packet. This is why the FULL
bitmap is used when the reassembling endpoint gets the whole datagram
regardless of which fragments were actually used to do so.
Intermediate nodes will unabiguously know that the process is
complete. Note that Path MTU Discovery is out of scope for this
document.
6.3. Aborting the Transmission of a Fragmented Packet
A reset is signaled on the forward path with a pseudo fragment that
has the Fragment_Offset set to 0. The sender of a reset SHOULD also
set the Sequence and Fragment_Size field to 0.
When the fragmenting endpoint or a router on the path decides that a
packet should be dropped and the fragmentation process aborted, it
generates a reset pseudo fragment and forwards it down the fragment
path.
Each router next along the path the way forwards the pseudo fragment
based on the VRB state. If an acknowledgment is not requested, the
VRB and all associated state are destroyed.
Upon reception of the pseudo fragment, the reassembling endpoint
cleans up all resources for the packet associated with the
Datagram_Tag. If an acknowledgment is requested, the reassembling
endpoint responds with a NULL bitmap.
The other way around, the reassembling endpoint might need to abort
the processing of a fragmented packet for internal reasons, for
instance if it is out of reassembly buffers, already uses all 256
possible values of the Datagram_Tag, or if it keeps receiving
fragments beyond a reasonable time while it considers that this
packet is already fully reassembled and was passed to the upper
layer. In that case, the reassembling endpoint SHOULD indicate so to
the fragmenting endpoint with a NULL bitmap in an RFRAG
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
Acknowledgment. The RFRAG Acknowledgment is forwarded all the way
back to the source of the packet and cleans up all resources on the
path. Upon an acknowledgment with a NULL bitmap, the fragmenting
endpoint MUST abort the transmission of the fragmented datagram with
one exception: In the particular case of the first fragment, it MAY
decide to retry via an alternate next hop instead.
6.4. Applying Recoverable Fragmentation along a Diverse Path
The text above can be read with the assumption of a serial path
between a source and a destination. Section 4.5.3 of the "6TiSCH
Architecture" [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] defines the concept of a
Track that can be a complex path between a source and a destination
with Packet ARQ, Replication, Elimination and Overhearing (PAREO)
along the Track. This specification can be used along any subset of
the complex Track where the first fragment is flooded. The last
RFRAG Acknowledgment is flooded on that same subset in the reverse
direction. Intermediate RFRAG Acknowledgments can be flooded on any
sub-subset of that reverse subset that reach back to the source.
7. Management Considerations
This specification extends "On Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a
Multihop IPv6 Network" [FRAG-FWD] and requires the same parameters in
the reassembling endpoint and on intermediate nodes. There is no new
parameter as echoing ECN is always on. These parameters typically
include the reassembly timeout at the reassembling endpoint and an
inactivity clean-up timer on the intermediate nodes, and the number
of messages that can be processed in parallel in all nodes.
The configuration settings introduced by this specification only
apply to the fragmenting endpoint, which is in full control of the
transmission. LLNs vary a lot in size (there can be thousands of
nodes in a mesh), in speed (from 10 Kbps to several Mbps at the PHY
layer), in traffic density, and in optimizations that are desired
(e.g., the selection of a RPL [RFC6550] Objective Function [RFC6552]
impacts the shape of the routing graph).
For that reason, only a very generic guidance can be given on the
settings of the fragmenting endpoint and on whether complex
algorithms are needed to perform flow control or estimate the round-
trip time. To cover the most complex use cases, this specification
enables the fragmenting endpoint to vary the fragment size, the
window size, and the inter-frame gap, based on the number of losses,
the observed variations of the round-trip time and the setting of the
ECN bit.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
7.1. Protocol Parameters
The management system SHOULD be capable of providing the parameters
listed in this section and an implementation MUST abide by those
parameters and in particular never exceed the minimum and maximum
configured boundaries.
An implementation must control the rate at which it sends packets
over the same path to allow the next hop to forward a packet before
it gets the next. In a wireless network that uses the same frequency
along a path, more time must be inserted to avoid hidden terminal
issues between fragments (more in Section 4.2).
This is controlled by the following parameter:
inter-frame gap: Indicates the minimum amount of time between
transmissions. The inter-frame gap protects the propagation of
one transmission before the next one is triggered and creates a
duty cycle that controls the ratio of air time and memory in
intermediate nodes that a particular datagram will use.
An implementation should consider the generic recommendations from
the IETF in the matter of flow control and rate management in
[RFC5033]. To control the flow, an implementation may use a dynamic
value of the window size (Window_Size), adapt the fragment size
(Fragment_Size), and insert an inter-frame gap that is longer than
necessary. In a large network where nodes contend for the bandwidth,
a larger Fragment_Size consumes less bandwidth but also reduces
fluidity and incurs higher chances of loss in transmission. This is
controlled by the following parameters:
MinFragmentSize: The MinFragmentSize is the minimum value for the
Fragment_Size.
OptFragmentSize: The OptFragmentSize is the value for the
Fragment_Size that the fragmenting endpoint should use to start
with. It is greater than or equal to MinFragmentSize. It is less
than or equal to MaxFragmentSize. For the first fragment, it must
account for the expansion of the IPv6 addresses and of the Hop
Limit field within MTU. For all fragments, it is a balance
between the expected fluidity and the overhead of Link-Layer and
6LoWPAN headers. For a small MTU, the idea is to keep it close to
the maximum, whereas for larger MTUs, it might makes sense to keep
it short enough, so that the duty cycle of the transmitter is
bounded, e.g., to transmit at least 10 frames per second.
MaxFragmentSize: The MaxFragmentSize is the maximum value for the
Fragment_Size. It MUST be lower than the minimum MTU along the
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
path. A large value augments the chances of buffer bloat and
transmission loss. The value MUST be less than 512 if the unit
that is defined for the PHY layer is the byte.
MinWindowSize: The minimum value of Window_Size that the fragmenting
endpoint can use. A value of 1 is RECOMMENDED.
OptWindowSize: The OptWindowSize is the value for the Window_Size
that the fragmenting endpoint should use to start with. It is
greater than or equal to MinWindowSize. It is less than or equal
to MaxWindowSize. A rule of a thumb for OptWindowSize could be an
estimation of the one-way trip time divided by the inter-frame
gap. If the acknowledgement back is too costly, it is possible to
set this to 32, meaning that only the last Fragment is
acknowledged in the first round.
MaxWindowSize: The maximum value of Window_Size that the fragmenting
endpoint can use. The value MUST be strictly less than 33.
An implementation may perform its estimate of the RTO or use a
configured one. The ARQ process is controlled by the following
parameters:
MinARQTimeOut: The minimum amount of time a node should wait for an
RFRAG Acknowledgment before it takes the next action. It MUST be
more than the maximum expected round-trip time in the respective
network.
OptARQTimeOut: The initial value of the RTO, which is the amount of
time that a fragmenting endpoint should wait for an RFRAG
Acknowledgment before it takes the next action. It is greater
than or equal to MinARQTimeOut. It is less than or equal to
MaxARQTimeOut. See Appendix C for recommendations on computing
the round-trip time. By default a value of 3 times the maximum
expected round-trip time in the respective network is RECOMMENDED.
MaxARQTimeOut: The maximum amount of time a node should wait for the
RFRAG Acknowledgment before it takes the next action. It must
cover the longest expected round-trip time, and be several times
less than the timeout that covers the recomposition buffer at the
reassembling endpoint, which is typically on the order of the
minute. An upper bound can be estimated to ensure that the
datagram is either fully transmitted or dropped before an upper
layer decides to retry it.
MaxFragRetries: The maximum number of retries for a particular
fragment. A default value of 3 is RECOMMENDED. An upper bound
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
can be estimated to ensure that the datagram is either fully
transmitted or dropped before an upper layer decides to retry it.
MaxDatagramRetries: The maximum number of retries from scratch for a
particular datagram. A default value of 1 is RECOMMENDED. An
upper bound can be estimated to ensure that the datagram is either
fully transmitted or dropped before an upper layer decides to
retry it.
An implementation may be capable of performing flow control based on
ECN; see in Appendix C. This is controlled by the following
parameter:
UseECN: Indicates whether the fragmenting endpoint should react to
ECN. The fragmenting endpoint may react to ECN by varying the
Window_Size between MinWindowSize and MaxWindowSize, varying the
Fragment_Size between MinFragmentSize and MaxFragmentSize, and/or
by increasing or reducing the inter-frame gap. With this
specification, if UseECN is set and a fragmenting endpoint detects
a congestion, it resets the Window_Size to 1 till the end of the
datagram, whereas if UseECN is reset, the endpoint does not react
to congestion. Future specifications may provide additional
parameters and capabilities.
7.2. Observing the network
The management system should monitor the number of retries and of ECN
settings that can be observed from the perspective of both the
fragmenting endpoint and the reassembling endpoint with regards to
the other endpoint. It may then tune the optimum size of
Fragment_Size and of Window_Size, OptFragmentSize, and OptWindowSize,
respectively, at the fragmenting endpoint towards a particular
reassembling endpoint, applicable to the next datagrams. The values
should be bounded by the expected number of hops and reduced beyond
that when the number of datagrams that can traverse an intermediate
point may exceed its capacity and cause a congestion loss. The
inter-frame gap is another tool that can be used to increase the
spacing between fragments of the same datagram and reduce the ratio
of time when a particular intermediate node holds a fragment of that
datagram.
8. Security Considerations
This document specifies an instantiation of a 6FF technique and
inherits from the generic description in [FRAG-FWD]. The
considerations in the Security Section of [FRAG-FWD] equally apply to
this document.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
In addition to the threats detailed therein, an attacker that is on-
path can prematurely end the transmission of a datagram by sending a
RFRAG Acknowledgment to the fragmenting endpoint. It can also cause
extra transmissions of fragments by resetting bits in the RFRAG
Acknowledgment bitmap, and of RFRAG Acknowledgments by forcing the
Ack-Request bit in fragments that it forwards.
As indicated in [FRAG-FWD], Secure joining and the Link-Layer
security are REQUIRED to protect against those attacks, as the
fragmentation protocol does not include any native security
mechanisms.
This specification does not recommend a particular algorithm for the
estimation of the duration of the RTO that covers the detection of
the loss of a fragment with the 'X' flag set; regardless, an attacker
on the path may slow down or discard packets, which in turn can
affect the throughput of fragmented packets.
Compared to "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks" [RFC4944], this specification reduces the Datagram_Tag to 8
bits and the tag wraps faster than with [RFC4944]. But for a
constrained network where a node is expected to be able to hold only
one or a few large packets in memory, 256 is still a large number.
Also, the acknowledgement mechanism allows cleaning up the state
rapidly once the packet is fully transmitted or aborted.
The abstract Virtual Recovery Buffer inherited from [FRAG-FWD] may be
used to perform a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack against the
intermediate Routers since the routers need to maintain a state per
flow. The particular VRB implementation technique described in
[LWIG-FRAG] allows realigning which data goes in which fragment,
which causes the intermediate node to store a portion of the data,
which adds an attack vector that is not present with this
specification. With this specification, the data that is transported
in each fragment is conserved and the state to keep does not include
any data that would not fit in the previous fragment.
9. IANA Considerations
This document allocates 2 patterns for a total of 4 dispatch values
in Page 0 for recoverable fragments from the "Dispatch Type Field"
registry that was created by "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE
802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944] and reformatted by "6LoWPAN Paging
Dispatch" [RFC8025].
The suggested patterns (to be confirmed by IANA) are indicated in
Table 1.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Pattern | Page | Header Type | Reference |
+=============+======+==================================+===========+
| 11 10100x | 0 | RFRAG - Recoverable Fragment | THIS RFC |
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 10100x | 1-14 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 10100x | 15 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 8025 |
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 10101x | 0 | RFRAG-ACK - RFRAG | THIS RFC |
| | | Acknowledgment | |
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 10101x | 1-14 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 11 10101x | 15 | Reserved for Experimental Use | RFC 8025 |
+-------------+------+----------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Additional Dispatch Value Bit Patterns
10. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Michel Veillette, Dario Tedeschi, Laurent
Toutain, Carles Gomez Montenegro, Thomas Watteyne, and Michael
Richardson for in-depth reviews and comments. Also many thanks to
Roman Danyliw, Peter Yee, Colin Perkins, Tirumaleswar Reddy Konda,
Eric Vyncke, Warren Kumari, Magnus Westerlund, Erik Nordmark, and
especially Benjamin Kaduk and Mirja Kuhlewind for their careful
reviews and for helping through the IETF Last Call and IESG review
process, and to Jonathan Hui, Jay Werb, Christos Polyzois, Soumitri
Kolavennu, Pat Kinney, Margaret Wasserman, Richard Kelsey, Carsten
Bormann, and Harry Courtice for their various contributions in the
long process that lead to this document.
11. Normative References
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6298, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6298>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6606] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., Gomez, C., and C. Bormann, "Problem
Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing",
RFC 6606, DOI 10.17487/RFC6606, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6606>.
[RFC8025] Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch",
RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8025>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[FRAG-FWD] Watteyne, T., Thubert, P., and C. Bormann, "On Forwarding
6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multihop IPv6 Network", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-
13, 5 March 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
6lo-minimal-fragment-13>.
12. Informative References
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC7567] Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC7567, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7567>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4963, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4963>.
[RFC6550] 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>.
[RFC6552] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)",
RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
[RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8087] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8087, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.
[RFC5033] Floyd, S. and M. Allman, "Specifying New Congestion
Control Algorithms", BCP 133, RFC 5033,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5033, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5033>.
[LWIG-FRAG]
Bormann, C. and T. Watteyne, "Virtual reassembly buffers
in 6LoWPAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly-01, 11 March 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-
virtual-reassembly-01>.
[FRAG-ILE] Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O.,
and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
fragile-17, 30 September 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
fragile-17>.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28, 29 October 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-
architecture-28>.
[IEEE.802.15.4]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks",
IEEE Standard 802.15.4, DOI 10.1109/IEEE
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
P802.15.4-REVd/D01,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875/>.
[Kent] Kent, C. and J. Mogul, ""Fragmentation Considered
Harmful", In Proc. SIGCOMM '87 Workshop on Frontiers in
Computer Communications Technology",
DOI 10.1145/55483.55524, August 1987,
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/WRL-
87-3.pdf>.
Appendix A. Rationale
There are a number of uses for large packets in Wireless Sensor
Networks. Such usages may not be the most typical or represent the
largest amount of traffic over the LLN; however, the associated
functionality can be critical enough to justify extra care for
ensuring effective transport of large packets across the LLN.
The list of those usages includes:
Towards the LLN node: Firmware update: For example, a new version
of the LLN node software is downloaded from a system manager
over unicast or multicast services. Such a reflashing
operation typically involves updating a large number of similar
LLN nodes over a relatively short period of time.
Packages of Commands: A number of commands or
a full configuration can be packaged as a single message to
ensure consistency and enable atomic execution or complete roll
back. Until such commands are fully received and interpreted,
the intended operation will not take effect.
From the LLN node: Waveform captures: A number of consecutive
samples are measured at a high rate for a short time and then
transferred from a sensor to a gateway or an edge server as a
single large report.
Data logs: LLN nodes may generate large logs of
sampled data for later extraction. LLN nodes may also generate
system logs to assist in diagnosing problems on the node or
network.
Large data packets: Rich data types might
require more than one fragment.
Uncontrolled firmware download or waveform upload can easily result
in a massive increase of the traffic and saturate the network.
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
When a fragment is lost in transmission, the lack of recovery in the
original fragmentation system of RFC 4944 implies that all fragments
would need to be resent, further contributing to the congestion that
caused the initial loss, and potentially leading to congestion
collapse.
This saturation may lead to excessive radio interference, or random
early discard (leaky bucket) in relaying nodes. Additional queuing
and memory congestion may result while waiting for a low power next
hop to emerge from its sleeping state.
Considering that RFC 4944 defines an MTU is 1280 bytes and that in
most incarnations (except 802.15.4g) a IEEE Std. 802.15.4 frame can
limit the Link-Layer payload to as few as 74 bytes, a packet might be
fragmented into at least 18 fragments at the 6LoWPAN shim layer.
Taking into account the worst-case header overhead for 6LoWPAN
Fragmentation and Mesh Addressing headers will increase the number of
required fragments to around 32. This level of fragmentation is much
higher than that traditionally experienced over the Internet with
IPv4 fragments. At the same time, the use of radios increases the
probability of transmission loss and Mesh-Under techniques compound
that risk over multiple hops.
Mechanisms such as TCP or application-layer segmentation could be
used to support end-to-end reliable transport. One option to support
bulk data transfer over a frame-size-constrained LLN is to set the
Maximum Segment Size to fit within the link maximum frame size.
Doing so, however, can add significant header overhead to each
802.15.4 frame and cause extraneous acknowledgements across the LLN
compared to the method in this specification.
Appendix B. Requirements
For one-hop communications, a number of Low Power and Lossy Network
(LLN) link-layers propose a local acknowledgment mechanism that is
enough to detect and recover the loss of fragments. In a multihop
environment, an end-to-end fragment recovery mechanism might be a
good complement to a hop-by-hop MAC recovery. This draft introduces
a simple protocol to recover individual fragments between 6FF
endpoints that may be multiple hops away.
The method addresses the following requirements of an LLN:
Number of fragments: The recovery mechanism must support highly
fragmented packets, with a maximum of 32 fragments per packet.
Minimum acknowledgment overhead: Because the radio is half duplex,
and because of silent time spent in the various medium access
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
mechanisms, an acknowledgment consumes roughly as many resources
as a data fragment.
The new end-to-end fragment recovery mechanism should be able to
acknowledge multiple fragments in a single message and not require
an acknowledgment at all if fragments are already protected at a
lower layer.
Controlled latency: The recovery mechanism must succeed or give up
within the time boundary imposed by the recovery process of the
Upper Layer Protocols.
Optional congestion control: The aggregation of multiple concurrent
flows may lead to the saturation of the radio network and
congestion collapse.
The recovery mechanism should provide means for controlling the
number of fragments in transit over the LLN.
Appendix C. Considerations on Flow Control
Considering that a multi-hop LLN can be a very sensitive environment
due to the limited queuing capabilities of a large population of its
nodes, this draft recommends a simple and conservative approach to
Congestion Control, based on TCP congestion avoidance.
Congestion on the forward path is assumed in case of packet loss, and
packet loss is assumed upon time out. The draft allows controlling
the number of outstanding fragments that have been transmitted but
for which an acknowledgment was not received yet and are still
covered by the ARQ timer.
Congestion on the forward path can also be indicated by an Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) mechanism. Though whether and how ECN
[RFC3168] is carried out over the LoWPAN is out of scope, this draft
provides a way for the destination endpoint to echo an ECN indication
back to the fragmenting endpoint in an acknowledgment message as
represented in Figure 4 in Section 5.2. While the support of echoing
the ECN at the reassembling endpoint is mandatory, this specification
only provides a minimalistic behaviour on the fragmenting endpoint,
that is to reset the window to 1 so the fragments are sent and
acknowledged one by one till the end of the datagram.
It must be noted that congestion and collision are different topics.
In particular, when a mesh operates on the same channel over multiple
hops, then the forwarding of a fragment over a certain hop may
collide with the forwarding of the next fragment that is following
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
over a previous hop but in the same interference domain. This draft
enables end-to-end flow control, but leaves it to the fragmenting
endpoint stack to pace individual fragments within a transmit window,
so that a given fragment is sent only when the previous fragment has
had a chance to progress beyond the interference domain of this hop.
In the case of 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture], which operates
over the TimeSlotted Channel Hopping [RFC7554] (TSCH) mode of
operation of IEEE802.14.5, a fragment is forwarded over a different
channel at a different time and it makes full sense to transmit the
next fragment as soon as the previous fragment has had its chance to
be forwarded at the next hop.
From the standpoint of a source 6LoWPAN endpoint, an outstanding
fragment is a fragment that was sent but for which no explicit
acknowledgment was received yet. This means that the fragment might
be on the path, received but not yet acknowledged, or the
acknowledgment might be on the path back. It is also possible that
either the fragment or the acknowledgment was lost on the way.
From the fragmenting endpoint standpoint, all outstanding fragments
might still be in the network and contribute to its congestion.
There is an assumption, though, that after a certain amount of time,
a frame is either received or lost, so it is not causing congestion
anymore. This amount of time can be estimated based on the round-
trip time between the 6LoWPAN endpoints. For the lack of a more
adapted technique, the method detailed in "Computing TCP's
Retransmission Timer" [RFC6298] may be used for that computation.
The reader is encouraged to read through "Congestion Control
Principles" [RFC2914]. Additionally [RFC7567] and [RFC5681] provide
deeper information on why this mechanism is needed and how TCP
handles Congestion Control. Basically, the goal here is to manage
the number of fragments present in the network; this is achieved by
to reducing the number of outstanding fragments over a congested path
by throttling the sources.
Section 6 describes how the fragmenting endpoint decides how many
fragments are (re)sent before an acknowledgment is required, and how
the fragmenting endpoint adapts that number to the network
conditions.
Author's Address
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Selective RFRAG March 2020
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Thubert Expires 19 September 2020 [Page 31]