The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain
The information below is for an old version of the document.
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|Stream||Stream state||(No stream defined)|
|RFC Editor Note||(None)|
|IESG||IESG state||I-D Exists|
|Send notices to||(None)|
ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track April 17, 2014 Expires: October 17, 2014 The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-00 Abstract This document present how the Flow Label can be used inside a RPL domain as a replacement to the RPL option and provides rules for the root to set and reset the Flow Label when forwarding between the inside of RPL domain and the larger Internet, in both direction. This new operation saves 44 bits in each frame, and an eventual IP- in-IP encapsulation within the RPL domain that is required for all packets that reach outside of the RPL domain. 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 October 17, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 1.1. On LLN flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. On Wasted Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. On Compatibility With Existing Standards . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Flow Label Format Within the RPL Domain . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Root Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Incoming Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Outgoing Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. RPL node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction The emergence of radio technology enabled a large variety of new types of devices to be interconnected, at a very low marginal cost compared to wire, at any range from Near Field to interplanetary distances, and in circumstances where wiring would be less than practical, for instance rotating devices. In particular, IEEE802.14.5 [IEEE802154] that is chartered to specify PHY and MAC layers for radio Lowpower Lossy Networks (LLNs), defined the TimeSlotted Channel Hopping [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] (TSCH) mode of operation as part of the IEEE802.15.4e MAC specification in order to address Time Sensitive applications. The 6TISCH architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] specifies the operation IPv6 over the IEEE802.15.4e TimeSlotted Channel Hopping [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] (TSCH) wireless networks attached and synchronized by backbone routers. In that model, route Computation may be achieved in a centralized fashion by a Path Computation Element (PCE), in a distributed fashion using the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks [RFC6550] (RPL), or in a mixed mode. The Backbone Routers may typically serve as roots for the RPL domain. 6TiSCH was created to simplify the adoption of IETF technology by other Standard Defining Organizations (SDOs), in particular in the Industrial Automation space, which already relies on variations of IEEE802.15.4e TSCH for Wireless Sensor Networking. ISA100.11a [ISA100.11a] is an example of such industrial WSN standard, using IEEE802.15.4e over the classical IEEE802.14.5 PHY. In that case, after security is applied, roughly 80 octets are available per frame for IP and Payload. In order to 1) avoid fragmentation and 2) conserve energy, the SDO will scrutinize any bit in the frame and reject any waste. Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 The challenge to obtain the adoption of IPv6 in the original standard was really to save any possible bit in the frames, including the UDP checksum which was an interesting discussion on its own. This work was actually one of the roots for the 6LoWPAN Header Compression [RFC6282] work, which goes down to the individual bits to save space in the frames for actual data, and allowed ISA100.11a to adopt IPv6. 1.1. On LLN flows In industrial applications such as control systems [RFC5673], a packet loss is usually acceptable but jitter and latency must be strictly controlled as they can play a critical role in the interpretation of the measured information. Sensory systems are often distributed, and the control information can in fact be originated from multiple sources and aggregated. As a result, it can be a requirement for related measurements from multiple sources to be treated as a single flow following a same path over the Internet in order to experience similar jitter and latency. The traditional tuple of source, destination and ports might then not be the proper indication to isolate a meaningful flow. In a typical LLN application, the bulk of the traffic consists of small chunks of data (in the order few bytes to a few tens of bytes) at a time. In the industrial case, a typical frequency is 4Hz but it can be a lot slower than that for, say, environmental monitoring. The granularity of traffic from a single source is too small to make a lot of sense in load balancing application. In such cases, related packets from multiple sources should not be load-balanced along their path in the Internet; load-balancing can be discouraged by tagging those packets with a same Flow Label in the IPv6 [RFC2460] header. This can be achieved if the Flow Label in packets outgoing a RPL domain are set by the root of the RPL structure as opposed to the actual source. It derives that the Flow Label could be reused inside the RPL domain. In a LLN, each transmitted bit represents energy and every saving counts dearly. Considering that the value for which the Flow Label is used in the IPv6 Flow Label Specification [RFC6437] is to serve load balancing in the core, it is unlikely that LLN devices will consume energy to generate and then transmit a Flow Label to serve interests in some other place. On the other hand, it makes sense to recommend the computation of a stateless Flow Label at the root of the LLN towards the Internet. Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 Reciprocally, [RFC6437] requires that once set, a non-zero flow label value is left unchanged. The value for that setting is consumed once the packet has traversed the core and reaches the LLN. Then again, there is little value but a high cost for the LLN in spending 20 bits to transport a Flow Label from the Internet over the constrained network to the destination node. It results that the MUST in [RFC6437] should be alleviated for packets coming from the outside on the LLN, and that it should be acceptable that the compression over the LLN erases the original flow label. It should also be acceptable that the Flow Label field is reused in the LLN as proposed in this draft. 1.2. On Wasted Resources The Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC6550] specification defines a generic Distance Vector protocol that is adapted to a variety of LLNs. RPL forms Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs) which root often acts as the Border Router to connect the RPL domain to the Internet. The root is responsible to select the RPL Instance that is used to forward a packet coming from the Internet into the RPL domain. A classical RPL implementation will use the RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams [RFC6553] to tag a packet with the Instance ID and other information that RPL requires for its operation within the RPL domain. In particular, the Rank, which is the scalar metric computed by an specialized Objective Function such as [RFC6552], is modified at each hop and allows to validate that the packet progresses in the execpted direction each upwards or downwards in along the DODAG. With [RFC6553] the RPL option is encoded as 6 Octets; it must be placed in a Hop-by-Hop header that represents 2 additional octets for a total of 8. In order to limit its range to the inside the RPL domain, the Hop-by-Hop header must be added to (or removed from) packets that cross the border of the RPL domain. For reasons such as the capability to send ICMP errors back to the source, this operation involves an extra IP-in-IP encapsulation inside the RPL domain for all the packets which path is not contained within the RPL domain. The 8-octets overhead is detrimental to the LLN operation, in particular with regards to bandwidth and battery constraints. The extra encapsulation may cause a containing frame to grow above maximum frame size, leading to Layer 2 or 6LoWPAN [RFC4944] fragmentation, which in turn cause even more energy spending and issues discussed in the LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery [I-D .thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments]. Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 ------+--------- ^ | Internet | | | Native IPv6 +-----+ | | | Border Router (RPL Root) ^ | ^ | | | | | +-----+ | | | IPv6 + | | | | HbH o o o o | | | headers o o o o o o o o o | | | o o o o o o o o o o | | | o o o o o o o o o | | | o o o o o o o o v v v o o o o o o o o o o LLN Considering that, in the classical IEEE802.14.5 PHY that is used by ISA100.11a, roughly 80 octets are available per frame after security is applied, and , any additional transmitted octet weights in the energy consumption and drains the batteriesBut [RFC6282] does not provide an efficient compression for the RPL option so the cost in current implementations can not be alleviated in any fashion. So even for packets that are confined within the RPL domain and do not need the 6in6 encapsulation, the use of the flow label instead of the RPL option would be a valuable saving. 1.3. On Compatibility With Existing Standards All the packets from all the nodes in a same DODAG that are leaving a RPL domain towards the Internet will transit via a same RPL root. The RPL root segregates the Internet and the RPL domain, which enables the capability to reuse the Flow Label within the RPL domain. On the other hand, the operation of writing/rewriting the IPv6 Flow Label at the root of a RPL domain may seem in contradiction with the IPv6 Flow Label Specification [RFC6437], in that it is neither the source nor the first hop router that sets the final Flow Label for use outside the RPL domain. Additionally, using the Flow Label to transport the information that is classically present in the RPL option implies that the Flow Label is modified at each hop inside the RPL domain, which again contradicts [RFC6437], which explicitly requires that the flow label cannot be modified once set. Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 But if we consider the whole RPL domain as a large virtual host from the standpoint of the rest of the Internet, the interests that lead to [RFC6437], and in particular load balancing in the core of the Internet, are probably better served if the root guarantees that the Flow Label is set in a compliant fashion than if we rely on each individual sensor that may not use it at all, or use it slightly differently such as done in ISA100.11a. Additionally, LLN flows can be compound flows aggregating information from multiple sources. The root is an ideal place to rewrite the Flow Label to a same value for a same flow across multiple sources, ensuring compliance with the rules defined by [RFC6437] for use outside of the RPL domain and in particular in the core of the Internet. It can be noted that [RFC6282] provides an efficient header compression for packets that do have the Flow Label set in the IPv6 header. It results overhead for transporting the RPL information can be down from 64 to 20 bits, alleviating at the same time the need for IP-in-IP encapsulation. This optimization cannot be ignored, and is required for the adoption of the 6TiSCH architecture by external standard bodies. This document specifies how the Flow Label can be reused within the RPL domain as a replacement to the RPL option. The use of the Flow Label within a RPL domain is an instance of the stateful scenarios as discussed in [RFC6437]where the states include the rank of a node and the RPLInstanceID that identifies the routing topology. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. The Terminology used in this document is consistent with and incorporates that described in `Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks' [RFC7102] and [RFC6550]. 3. Flow Label Format Within the RPL Domain [RFC6550] section 11.2 specifies the fields that are to be placed into the packets for the purpose of Instance Identification, as well as Loop Avoidance and Detection. Those fields include an 'O', and 'R' and an 'F' bits, the 8-bit RPLInstanceID, and the 16-bit SenderRank. SenderRank is the result of the DAGRank operation on the rank of the sender, where the DAGRank operation is defined in section 3.5.1 as: DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease) Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 If MinHopRankIncrease is set to a multiple of 256, it appears that the most significant 8 bits of the SenderRank will be all zeroes and could be ommitted. In that case, the Flow Label MAY be used as a replacement to the [RFC6553] RPL option. To achive this, the SenderRank is expressed with 8 least significant bits, and the information carried within the Flow Label in a packet is constructed follows: 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |O|R|F| SenderRank | RPLInstanceID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The first (leftmost) bit of the Flow Label is reserved and should be set to zero. 4. Root Operation [RFC6437] section 3 intentionally does not consider flow label values in which any of the bits have semantic significance. However, the present specification assigns semantics to various bits in the flow label, destroying within the edge network that is the RPL domaina property of belonging to a statistically uniform distribution that is desirable in the rest of the Internet. This property MUST be restored by the root for outgoing packets. It can be noted that the rationale for the statistically uniform distribution does not necessarily bring a lot of value within the RPL domain. In a specific use case where it would, that value must be compared with that of the battery savings in order to decide which technique the deployment will use to transport the RPL information. 4.1. Incoming Packets When routing a packet towards the RPL domain, the root applies a policy to determine whether the Flow Label is to be used to carry the RPL information. If so, the root MUST reset the Flow Label and then it MUST set all the fields in the Flow Label as prescribed by [RFC6553] using the format specified in Figure 2. In particular, the root selects the Instance that will be used to forward the packet within the RPL domain. 4.2. Outgoing Packets When routing a packet outside the RPL domain, the root applies a policy to determine whether the Flow Label was used to carry the RPL information. If so, the root MUST reset the Flow Label. The root SHOULD recompute a Flow Label following the rules prescribed by [RFC6553]. In particular, the root MAY ignore the source address but it SHOULD use the RPLInstanceID for the computation. Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 5. RPL node Operation Depending on the policy in place, the source of a packet will decide whether to use this specification to transport the RPL information in the IPv6 packets. If it does, the source in the LLN SHOULD set the Flow Label to zero and MUST NOT expect that the flow label will be conserved end-to-end". 6. Security Considerations The process of using the Flow Label as opposed to the RPL option does not appear to create any opening for new threat compared to [RFC6553]. 7. IANA Considerations No IANA action is required for this specification. 8. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Brian Carpenter for his in-depth review and constructive approach to the problem and its resolution. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [IEEE802154] IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks", June 2011. [ISA100.11a] ISA, "ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation", May 2008, < http://www.isa.org/Community/ SP100WirelessSystemsforAutomation>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, September 2011. [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S. and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, November 2011. Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 [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. [RFC6552] Thubert, P., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6552, March 2012. [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, March 2012. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and R. Assimiti, "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch- architecture-01, February 2014. [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] Watteyne, T., Palattella, M. and L. Grieco, "Using IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an LLN context: Overview, Problem Statement and Goals", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch- tsch-00, November 2013. [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments] Thubert, P. and J. Hui, "LLN Fragment Forwarding and Recovery", Internet-Draft draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding- fragments-01, February 2014. [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J. and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. [RFC5673] Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S. and T. Phinney, "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, October 2009. [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014. Author's Address Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft The IPv6 Flow Label within a RPL domain April 2014 Pascal Thubert, editor Cisco Systems Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille Batiment T3 Biot - Sophia Antipolis, 06410 FRANCE Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Thubert Expires October 17, 2014 [Page 10]