RPL Routing Pathology In a Network With a Mix of Nodes Operating in Storing and Non-Storing Modes
draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-02

Networking Working Group                                           J. Ko
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Jeong
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Park
Expires: August 19, 2013                                          J. Jun
                                                                  N. Kim
                                                         Electronics and
                                             Telecommunications Research
                                                               Institute
                                                              O. Gnawali
                                                   University of Houston
                                                            Feb 15, 2013

  RPL Routing Pathology In a Network With a Mix of Nodes Operating in
                     Storing and Non-Storing Modes
                 draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-02

Abstract

   The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non-
   storing modes to operate in the same network.  We describe how such a
   mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of
   physical links available in the network.  The partitioning affects
   both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic.
   This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL
   specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join
   the RPL network as leaf nodes only.  We propose a solution that
   modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret
   source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a
   non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers.

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 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 August 19, 2013.

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Storing and Non-storing modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Routing Pathology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Fixing the Pathology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Considerations for Route Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

1.  Introduction

   RPL [RFC6550] can operate in storing and non-storing modes.  These
   modes introduce two different ways to perform downward routing.
   Downward routing is used when a node needs to send a packet to an
   arbitrary node (e.g., non-DODAG root node) in the network: the packet
   can go from a node "upward" towards the root and "downwards" to the
   final destination.

   The RPL specification allows operating a network with a mix of
   storing and non-storing modes.  RFC 6550 describes special rules to
   operate such a network: a node that operates with a different Mode of
   Operation (MOP) than the DODAG root will act as a leaf node in the
   network.  The consensus was that it is unknown if the network would
   work properly because no one had designed such a network and was left
   to be explored in the future.

   In this draft, we document a case in which we allow a mix of nodes
   operating in storing and non-storing modes to form a single network
   (e.g, despite having different MOPs) and show that RPL's two
   downwards routing modes, as it is, can cause a routing pathology.
   This pathology can partition the network, i.e., it can result in
   scenarios where nodes cannot send packets to the root and the root
   cannot send packets to the nodes even though these nodes have plenty
   of multi-hop physical connectivity in the network.

   We propose one approach of modifying RPL to prevent this routing
   pathology.  The methodology, introducing a new mode of operation
   (MOP), has been implemented and tested on an LLN testbed and in
   process of publication.  It is possible there are more elegant
   approaches to prevent the pathology described.

2.  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 RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

   The terminologies used in this document are consistent with the
   terminologies described in [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology], [RFC6551],
   and [RFC6550].

3.  Storing and Non-storing modes

   Before we describe the routing pathology that arises due to the

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

   existence of a mix of nodes operating in storing and non-storing
   modes, we review the storing and non-storing downwards routing modes
   that RPL introduces.

   In Storing mode, a node keeps a (not necessarily) complete list of
   (nodeid, nexthop) for nodes in its subtree.  When a node receives a
   packet, it forwards the packet to the nexthop if the node finds the
   destination in the list.  If it does not find the destination in the
   list, it forwards the packet to the preferred parent.

   In Non-storing mode, if a packet does not have routing path in the
   header, it forwards the packet to the preferred parent.  The root in
   this mode collects and maintains topology information of the network.
   If the packet makes it to the root, the root computes the path to the
   destination based on this topology information.  The root puts this
   path in the header and sends it to the next hop.  The nodes, upon
   receiving a packet with a path in the header, forward the packet to
   the next hop as indicated in the path in the header.

4.  Routing Pathology

   We first examine the effect of this routing pathology for routing
   collection traffic packets.  Lets consider the following network
   topology.

   A -> B -> N -> S -> Root (Storing)

   Note that RPL indicates that, storing mode nodes and non-storing mode
   nodes use a different mode of operation (MOP) field.  Furthermore, if
   the MOP supported from a DODAG root is not supported at a RPL node,
   the node can only participate in the RPL network as a leaf node.  Say
   that the Root of the topology is a storing mode node.  In this case,
   S (e.g., a storing mode node) can connect to the Root (a storing mode
   root) properly as a RPL router node.  On the other hand, using the
   DIOs initiated at the Root, N (e.g., a non-storing mode node) will
   notice that the Root's MOP and its MOP is different; therefore, will
   only connect join the RPL network as a leaf node.  As a result, A and
   B, which physically have connections to the root will not be able to
   join the RPL network.  On a functional perspective, this means that
   both upwards (e.g., collection traffic) and downwards traffic to or
   from nodes A and B cannot reach the root or any other node in the RPL
   network.  Thus, there is needless network partitioning.  While this
   is an extreme case, other cases where using routes that non-storing
   mode nodes provide can help optimize the collection and downwards
   routes that RPL nodes form.

   With the increasing diversity of applications we can envision a

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

   network where a part of the network consists of computationally
   powerful nodes with route storing capabilities and the other part of
   the network with low-resource nodes that use a non-storing mode and
   operate together in a single RPL network.  Also, as the size of LLN
   deployments increase, using a homogeneous non-storing mode RPL
   network will introduce a high level of communication overhead, and a
   homogeneous network of strong mode nodes will require too much memory
   resources.  Allowing storing and non-storing mode nodes to cooperate
   in a single network will resolve such system design issues.
   Furthermore, on a practical perspective, it is meaningful to use
   nodes that can contribute in constructing a more efficient DODAG that
   optimizes the data collection process rather than ignoring a node
   just because it supports a different MOP.  Unfortunately, in such
   cases, the pathology that we discuss above can arise and cause
   downwards packets to be dropped and even more, restrict the formation
   of efficient collection routes.

5.  Fixing the Pathology

   We describe one way to fix RPL to prevent the pathology described
   above, while acknowledging that there might be more elegant
   solutions.  In this approach, we acknowledge the fact that non-
   storing mode nodes are more likely to have strict resource
   limitations compared to nodes implementing the storing mode.
   Therefore, we make sure that the most of the required additional
   capabilities occur at the storing mode nodes rather than the non-
   storing mode nodes.

   1.  A new mode of operation (MOP) that allows a node to choose either
       to implement the storing or non-storing features, or both.  The
       changes below are made compared to the original storing and non-
       storing modes.

   2.  Require storing and non-storing nodes to implement source routing
       header parsing capabilities.

   3.  RPL DODAG Root nodes supporting this MOP should have the
       capability to store routes (similar to the non-storing mode
       option) and also identify storing mode node children nodes.

   4.  Non-storing nodes send hop-by-hop DAO.

   5.  Storing nodes keep a table of all the DAO senders and a flag
       indicating if each of those sender is operating in storing or
       non-storing mode.  This requires allocating one of the bits in
       the DAO message for a node to indicate if it is operating in
       storing or non-storing mode.

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

   6.  Change the forwarding mechanism in the storing mode node when it
       receives a downward bound packet:

   7.

       1.  If packet does not have source routing header and the next
           hop is a storing-mode node, forward as in [RFC6550].  If the
           next hop is a non-storing node, insert the source routing
           header [RFC6554] into the packet and forward, i.e., act like
           a non-storing root.

       2.  Using the flag indicating the storing status of nodes in its
           sub-DODAG, a node constructing a source routing header MAY
           choose to construct a source routing header only up to the
           next storing mode node.

       3.  If the incoming packet has a source routing header, a storing
           mode node SHOULD obey the route specified in the source
           routing header to comply with the strict source routing
           requirements in [RFC6554].

   If there is a mix of storing and non-storing nodes, we should also be
   more aggressive about loop detection.  More aggressive loop detection
   will quickly remove the looping packets from the network.  Even with
   the implementation of this suggestion, nodes beyond storing / non-
   storing nodes will still remain unreachable.

6.  Considerations for Route Management

   Given the lossy nature of the links and the variability in link
   quality on a temporal scale, the DAO parent(s) that were originally
   selected can change over time.  In such cases, nodes take the
   following steps.

   1.  Upon realizing a change in the DAO parent set, a RPL node SHOULD
       send a DAO with an increased Path Sequence Number to its ``new"
       DAO parent set.

   2.  Next, the node experiencing the change in its DAO parents, SHOULD
       send a No-Path DAO message with an increased Path Sequence Number
       to the set of DAO parents that have been deleted.

   3.  When nodes receive a DAO that contains a modified Transit
       Information option for a specific Target option, they SHOULD
       propagate this information to its DAO parents while respecting
       the Path Control field in the Transit Information option.

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

   4.  When a node without the route storing capability fails in
       forwarding a packet using the information provided by a source
       routing header, the node initiates an ICMPv6 error message to the
       node that constructed the source routing header.

   This process alerts nodes keeping the routing state of the DAO
   initiating nodes with the up-to-date DAO parent information.  Nodes
   with route storing capabilities will process the information and
   nodes without this capability will pass the information up the DODAG.
   When using the flag indicating the storing status, the propagation of
   the updated DAO and ICMPv6 error message MAY stop at the first node
   with route storing capability since this node takes the role of
   managing the routing state for the target node.

7.  Acknowledgements

8.  IANA Considerations

9.  Security Considerations

   Future work.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Thubert, P., 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, March 2012.

   [RFC6551]  Vasseur, JP., Kim, M., Pister, K., Dejean, N., and D.
              Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551, March 2012.

   [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,
              March 2012.

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
              Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
              Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-05 (work in
              progress), March 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   JeongGil Ko
   Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
   218 Gajeong-Ro
   Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon  305-700
   Korea

   Phone: +82-42-860-5824
   Email: jeonggil.ko@etri.re.kr

   Jongsoo Jeong
   Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
   218 Gajeong-Ro
   Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon  305-700
   Korea

   Phone: +82-42-860-1806
   Email: jsjeong@etri.re.kr

   Jongjun Park
   Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
   218 Gajeong-Ro
   Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon  305-700
   Korea

   Phone: +82-42-860-5413
   Email: juny@etri.re.kr

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology          Feb 2013

   Jong Arm Jun
   Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
   218 Gajeong-Ro
   Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon  305-700
   Korea

   Phone: +82-42-860-4835
   Email: jajun@etri.re.kr

   Naesoo Kim
   Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
   218 Gajeong-Ro
   Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon  305-700
   Korea

   Phone: +82-42-860-5214
   Email: nskim@etri.re.kr

   Omprakash Gnawali
   University of Houston
   PGH 577, University of Houston
   Houston, TX  77204
   USA

   Phone: +1-713-743-3356
   Email: gnawali@cs.uh.edu

Ko, et al.               Expires August 19, 2013                [Page 9]