6LoWPAN Working Group E. Kim
Internet-Draft ETRI
Intended status: Informational D. Kaspar
Expires: May 12, 2011 Simula Research Laboratory
C. Gomez
Tech. Univ. of Catalonia/i2CAT
C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
November 8, 2010
Problem Statement and Requirements for 6LoWPAN Routing
draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements-08
Abstract
6LoWPANs are formed by devices that are compatible with the IEEE
802.15.4 standard. However, neither the IEEE 802.15.4 standard nor
the 6LoWPAN format specification define how mesh topologies could be
obtained and maintained. Thus, it should be considered how 6LoWPAN
formation and multi-hop routing could be supported.
This document provides the problem statement and design space for
6LoWPAN routing. It defines the routing requirements for 6LoWPAN
networks, considering the low-power and other particular
characteristics of the devices and links. The purpose of this
document is not to recommend specific solutions, but to provide
general, layer-agnostic guidelines about the design of 6LoWPAN
routing, which can lead to further analysis and protocol design.
This document is intended as input to groups working on routing
protocols relevant to 6LoWPAN, such as the IETF ROLL WG.
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 May 12, 2011.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Design Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Reference Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Scenario Considerations and Parameters for 6LoWPAN Routing . . 10
5. 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Support of 6LoWPAN Device Properties . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Support of 6LoWPAN Link Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Support of 6LoWPAN Network Characteristics . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. Support of Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.5. Support of Mesh Under Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
1. Problem Statement
6LoWPANs are formed by devices that are compatible with the IEEE
802.15.4 standard [IEEE802.15.4]. Most of the LoWPAN devices are
distinguished by their low bandwidth, short range, scarce memory
capacity, limited processing capability and other attributes of
inexpensive hardware. The characteristics of nodes participating in
LoWPANs are assumed to be those described in the 6LoWPAN problem
statement [RFC4919], and the IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 [RFC4944]
document which has specified how to carry IPv6 packets over IEEE
802.15.4 and similar networks. Whereas IEEE 802.15.4 distinguishes
two types of devices called full-function devices (FFD) and reduced-
function devices (RFDs), this distinction is based on some MAC layer
features that are not always in use. Hence, the distinction is not
made in this document. Nevertheless, some 6LoWPAN nodes may limit
themselves to the role of hosts only, whereas other 6LoWPAN nodes may
take part in routing. This host/router distinction can correlate
with the processing and storage capabilities of the device and power
available in a similar way to the idea of RFDs and FFDs.
IEEE 802.15.4 networks support star and mesh topologies. However,
neither the IEEE 802.15.4 standard nor the 6LoWPAN format
specification ([RFC4944]) define how mesh topologies could be
obtained and maintained. Thus, 6LoWPAN formation and multi-hop
routing can be supported either below the IP layer (the adaptation
layer or LLC) or the IP layer. (Note that in the IETF, the term
"routing" usually, but not always [RFC5556], refers exclusively to
the formation of paths and the forwarding at the IP layer. In this
document we distinguish the layer at which these services are
performed by the terms "Route Over" and "Mesh Under". See Section 2
and Section 3.) A number of IP routing protocols have been developed
in various IETF working groups. However, these existing routing
protocols may not satisfy the requirements of multi-hop routing in
6LoWPANs, for the following reasons:
o 6LoWPAN nodes have special types and roles, such as nodes drawing
their power from primary batteries, power-affluent nodes, mains-
powered and high-performance gateways, data aggregators, etc.
6LoWPAN routing protocols should support multiple device types and
roles.
o More stringent requirements apply to LoWPANs, as opposed to higher
performance or non-battery-operated networks. 6LoWPAN nodes are
characterized by small memory sizes, low processing power, and are
running on very limited power supplied by primary non-rechargeable
batteries (a few kBytes of RAM, a few dozens of kBytes of ROM/
flash memory, and a few MHz of CPU is typical). A node's lifetime
is usually defined by the lifetime of its battery.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
o Handling sleeping nodes is very critical in LoWPANs, more than in
traditional ad-hoc networks. LoWPAN nodes might stay in sleep
mode for most of the time. Taking advantage of appropriate times
for transmissions is important for efficient packet forwarding.
o Routing in 6LoWPANs might possibly translate to a simpler problem
than routing in higher-performance networks. LoWPANs might be
either transit networks or stub networks. Under the assumption
that LoWPANs are never transit networks (as implied by [RFC4944]),
routing protocols may be drastically simplified. This document
will focus on the requirements for stub networks. Additional
requirements may apply to transit networks.
o Routing in LoWPANs might possibly translate to a harder problem
than routing in higher-performance networks. Routing in LoWPANs
requires power optimization, stable operation in lossy
environments, etc. These requirements are not easily satisfiable
all at once [I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey].
These properties create new challenges on obtaining robust and
reliable routing within LoWPANs.
The 6LoWPAN problem statement document ("6LoWPAN Problems and Goals"
[RFC4919]) briefly mentions four requirements on routing protocols:
(a) low overhead on data packets
(b) low routing overhead
(c) minimal memory and computation requirements
(d) support for sleeping nodes considering battery saving
These four high-level requirements describe the basic requirements
for 6LoWPAN routing. Based on the fundamental features of 6LoWPAN,
more detailed routing requirements are presented in this document,
which can lead to further analysis and protocol design.
Considering the problems above, detailed 6LoWPAN routing requirements
must be defined. Application-specific features affect the design of
6LoWPAN routing requirements and the corresponding solutions.
However, various applications can be profiled by similar technical
characteristics, although the related detailed requirements might
differ (e.g., a few dozens of nodes in a home lighting system need
appropriate scalability for its applications, while millions of nodes
for a highway infrastructure system also need appropriate
scalability).
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
This routing requirements document states the routing requirements of
6LoWPAN applications in general, providing examples for different
cases of routing. It does not imply a single routing solution to be
favorable for all 6LoWPAN applications and there is no requirement of
different routing protocols to run simultaneously.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
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].
Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
that are discussed in "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area
Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and
Goals" [RFC4919], and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE
802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944].
This specification makes use of the terminology defined in the
"Neighbor Discovery for 6LoWPAN" [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd] . In
addition, this specification defines a Mesh node as a device which is
capable of routing data below the IP layer.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
3. Design Space
Apart from a wide variety of conceivable routing algorithms for
6LoWPAN, it is possible to perform routing in the IP layer, using a
Route Over approach or below IP, as defined by the 6LoWPAN format
document [RFC4944], using the Mesh Under approach (see Figure 1).
The Route Over approach relies on IP routing and therefore supports
routing over possibly various types of interconnected links.
Note: The ROLL WG is now working on Route Over approaches for Low
power and Lossy Networks (LLNs), not specifically for 6LoWPAN. This
document focuses on 6LoWPAN-specific requirements; it may be used in
conjunction with the more application-oriented requirements defined
by the ROLL WG.
The Mesh Under approach performs the multi-hop communication below
the IP link. The most significant consequence of Mesh Under
mechanism is that the characteristics of IEEE 802.15.4 directly
affect the 6LoWPAN routing mechanisms, including the use of 64-bit
(or 16-bit short) link layer addresses instead of IP addresses. A
6LoWPAN would therefore be seen as a single IP link.
Most statements in this document consider both the Route Over and
Mesh Under cases.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Figure 1 shows the place of 6LoWPAN routing in the entire network
stack.
+---------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Application Layer | | Application Layer |
+---------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Transport Layer (TCP/UDP) | | Transport Layer (TCP/UDP) |
+---------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Network Layer (IPv6) | | Network +---------+ |
+---------------------------+ | Layer | Routing | |
| 6LoWPAN | | (IPv6) +---------+ |
| Adaptation | +-----------------------------+
| Layer +----------+ | | 6LoWPAN Adaptation Layer |
+--------------| Routing* |-+ +-----------------------------+
| 802.15.4 MAC +----------+ | | 802.15.4 MAC |
+---------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| 802.15.4 PHY | | 802.15.4 PHY |
+---------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
* Here, 'Routing' is not equivalent to IP routing,
but includes the functionalities of path computation and
forwarding under the IP layer.
The term 'Routing' is used in the figure in order to
illustrate which layer handles path computation and
packet forwarding in Mesh Under compared to Route Over.
Figure 1: Mesh Under (left) and Route Over routing (right)
In order to avoid packet fragmentation and the overhead for
reassembly, routing packets should fit into a single IEEE 802.15.4
physical frame and application data should not be expanded to an
extent that they no longer fit.
3.1. Reference Network Model
For multi-hop communication in 6LoWPAN, when a Route Over mechanism
is in use, all routers (i.e. 6LoWPAN Border Routers (6LBRs) and
6LoWPAN Routers (6LRs)) perform IP routing within the stub network
(see Figure 2). In this case, the link-local scope covers the set of
nodes within symmetric radio range of a node.
When a LoWPAN follows the Mesh Under configuration, the 6LBR is the
only IPv6 router in the LoWPAN (see Figure 3). This means that the
IPv6 link-local scope includes all nodes in the LoWPAN. For this, a
Mesh Under mechanism MUST be provided to support multi-hop
transmission.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
h h
/ | 6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router
6LBR -- 6LR --- 6LR --- h 6LR: 6LoWPAN Router
/ \ h: Host
h 6LR --- h
|
/ \
6LR - 6LR -- h
Figure 2: An example of a Route Over LoWPAN
h h
/ | 6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router
6LBR --- m --- m --- h m: Mesh Node
/ \ h: Host
h m --- h
|
/ \
m - m -- h
Figure 3: An example of a Mesh Under LoWPAN
Note than in both Mesh Under and Route Over networks, there is no
expectation of topologically based address assignment in the 6LoWPAN.
Instead, addresses are typically assigned based on the EUI-64
addresses assigned at manufacturing time to nodes, or based on a
(from a topological point of view) more or less random process
assigning 16-bit MAC addresses to individual nodes. Within a
6LoWPAN, there is therefore no opportunity for aggregation or
summarization of IPv6 addresses beyond the sharing of (one or more)
common prefixes.
Not all devices that are in radio range of each other need to be part
of the same LoWPAN. When multiple LoWPANs are formed with globally
unique IPv6 addresses in the 6LoWPANs, and device (a) of LoWPAN [A]
wants to communicate with device (b) of LoWPAN [B], the normal IPv6
mechanisms will be employed. For Route Over, the IPv6 address of (b)
is set as the destination of the packets, and the devices perform IP
routing to the 6LBR for these outgoing packets. For Mesh Under,
there is one IP hop from a device (a) to the 6LBR of [A], no matter
how many radio hops they are apart from each other. This, of course,
assumes the existence of a Mesh Under routing protocol in order to
reach the 6LBR. Note that a default route to the 6LBR could be
inserted into the 6LoWPAN routing system for both Route Over and Mesh
Under.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
4. Scenario Considerations and Parameters for 6LoWPAN Routing
IP-based LoWPAN technology is still in its early stage of
development, but the range of conceivable usage scenarios is
tremendous. The numerous possible applications of sensor networks
make it obvious that mesh topologies will be prevalent in LoWPAN
environments and robust routing will be a necessity for expedient
communication. Research efforts in the area of sensor networking
have put forth a large variety of multi-hop routing algorithms
[refs.bulusu]. Most related work focuses on optimizing routing for
specific application scenarios, which can be realized using several
models of communication, including the following ones [refs.cctc]:
o Flooding (in very small networks)
o Hierarchical routing
o Geographic routing
o Self-organizing coordinate routing
Depending on the topology of a LoWPAN and the application(s) running
over it, different types of routing may be used. However, this
document abstracts from application-specific communication and
describes general routing requirements valid for overall routing in
LoWPANs.
The following parameters can be used to describe specific scenarios
in which the candidate routing protocols could be evaluated.
a. Network Properties:
* Number of Devices, Density and Network Diameter:
These parameters usually affect the routing state directly
(e.g. the number of entries in a routing table or neighbor
list). Especially in large and dense networks, policies must
be applied for discarding "low-quality" and stale routing
entries in order to prevent memory overflow.
* Connectivity:
Due to external factors or programmed disconnections, a LoWPAN
can be in several states of connectivity; anything in the
range from "always connected" to "rarely connected". This
poses great challenges to the dynamic discovery of routes
across a LoWPAN.
* Dynamicity (including mobility):
Location changes can be induced by unpredictable external
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
factors or by controlled motion, which may in turn cause route
changes. Also, nodes may dynamically be introduced into a
LoWPAN and removed from it later. The routing state and the
volume of control messages may heavily depend on the number of
moving nodes in a LoWPAN and their speed, as well as how
quickly and frequently environmental characteristics
influencing radio propagation change.
* Deployment:
In a LoWPAN, it is possible for nodes to be scattered randomly
or to be deployed in an organized manner. The deployment can
occur at once, or as an iterative process, which may also
affect the routing state.
* Spatial Distribution of Nodes and Gateways:
Network connectivity depends on the spatial distribution of
the nodes and on other factors, such as device number, density
and transmission range. For instance, nodes can be placed on
a grid, or randomly located in an area (as can be modeled by a
bidimensional Poisson distribution), etc. Assuming a random
spatial distribution, an average of 7 neighbors per node are
required for approximately 95% network connectivity (10
neighbors per node are needed for 99%
connectivity)[refs.Kuhn]. In addition, if the LoWPAN is
connected to other networks through infrastructure nodes
called gateways, the number and spatial distribution of
gateways affects network congestion and available data rate,
among others.
* Traffic Patterns, Topology and Applications:
The design of a LoWPAN and the requirements on its application
have a big impact on the network topology and the most
efficient routing type to be used. For different traffic
patterns (point-to-point, multipoint-to-point, point-to-
multipoint) and network architectures, various routing
mechanisms have been developed, such as data-centric, event-
driven, address-centric, and geographic routing.
* Classes of Service:
For mixing applications of different criticality on one
LoWPAN, support of multiple classes of service may be required
in resource-constrained LoWPANs and may require a new routing
protocol functionality.
* Security:
LoWPANs may carry sensitive information and require a high
level of security support where the availability, integrity,
and confidentiality of data are of prime relevance. Secured
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
messages cause overhead and affect the power consumption of
LoWPAN routing protocols.
b. Node Parameters:
* Processing Speed and Memory Size:
These basic parameters define the maximum size of the routing
state and the maximum complexity of its processing. LoWPAN
nodes may have different performance characteristics, queuing
strategies and queue buffer sizes.
* Power Consumption and Power Source:
The number of battery- and mains-powered nodes and their
positions in the topology created by them in a LoWPAN affect
routing protocols in their selection of paths that optimize
network lifetime.
* Transmission Range:
This parameter affects routing. For example, a high
transmission range may cause a dense network, which in turn
results in more direct neighbors of a node, higher
connectivity and a larger routing state.
* Traffic Pattern:
This parameter affects routing since highly loaded nodes
(either because they are the source of packets to be
transmitted or due to forwarding) may contribute to higher
delivery delays and may consume more energy than lightly
loaded nodes. This applies to both data packets and routing
control messages.
c. Link Parameters:
This section discusses link parameters that apply to IEEE
802.15.4 legacy mode (i.e. not making use of improved modulation
schemes).
* Throughput:
The maximum user data throughput of a bulk data transmission
between a single sender and a single receiver through an
unslotted IEEE 802.15.4 2.4 GHz channel in ideal conditions is
as follows [refs.Latre]:
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: 151.6 kbit/s
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: 139.0 kbit/s
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: 135.6 kbit/s
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: 124.4 kbit/s
In the case of 915 MHz band:
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: 31.1 kbit/s
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: 28.6 kbit/s
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: 27.8 kbit/s
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: 25.6 kbit/s
In the case of 868 MHz band:
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: 15.5 kbit/s
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: 14.3 kbit/s
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: 13.9 kbit/s
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: 12.8 kbit/s
* Latency:
The range of latencies, depending on payload size, of a frame
transmission between a single sender and a single receiver
through an unslotted IEEE 802.15.4 2.4 GHz channel in ideal
conditions are as shown next [refs.Latre]. For unreliable
mode, the actual latency is provided. For reliable mode, the
round-trip-time including transmission of a layer two
acknowledgment is provided:
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: [1.92 ms, 6.02 ms]
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: [2.46 ms, 6.56 ms]
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: [2.75 ms, 6.02 ms]
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: [3.30 ms, 6.56 ms]
For the 915 MHz band:
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: [5.85 ms, 29.35 ms]
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: [8.35 ms, 31.85 ms]
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: [8.95 ms, 29.35 ms]
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: [11.45 ms, 31.85 ms]
For the 868 MHz band:
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: [11.7 ms, 58.7 ms]
+ 16-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: [16.7 ms, 63.7 ms]
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, unreliable mode: [17.9 ms, 58.7 ms]
+ 64-bit MAC addresses, reliable mode: [22.9 ms, 63.7 ms]
Note that some of the parameters presented in this section may be
used as link or node evaluation metrics. However, multi-criteria
routing may be too expensive for 6LoWPAN nodes. Rather, various
single-criteria metrics are available and can be selected to suit the
environment or application.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
5. 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements
This section defines a list of requirements for 6LoWPAN routing. An
important design property specific to low-power networks is that
LoWPANs have to support multiple device types and roles, such as:
o host nodes drawing their power from primary batteries or using
energy harvesting (both called "power-constrained nodes" in the
following)
o mains-powered host nodes (an example for what we call "power-
affluent nodes")
o power-affluent (but not necessarily mains-powered) high-
performance gateway(s)
o nodes with various functionality (data aggregators, relays, local
manager/coordinators, etc.)
Due to these different device types and roles LoWPANs need to
consider the following two primary attributes:
o Power conservation: some devices are mains-powered, but many are
battery-operated and need to last several months to a few years
with a single AA battery. Many devices are mains-powered most of
the time, but still need to function for possibly extended periods
from batteries (e.g. on a construction site before building power
is switched on for the first time).
o Low performance: tiny devices, small memory sizes, low-performance
processors, low bandwidth, high loss rates, etc.
These fundamental attributes of LoWPANs affect the design of routing
solutions. Whether existing routing specifications are simplified
and modified, or new solutions are introduced in order to fit the
low-power requirements of LoWPANs, they need to meet the requirements
described in the following.
5.1. Support of 6LoWPAN Device Properties
The general objectives listed in this section should be met by
6LoWPAN routing protocols. The importance of each requirement is
dependent on what node type the protocol is running on and what the
role of the node is. The following requirements consider the
presence of battery-powered nodes in LoWPANs.
[R01] 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD allow implementation with
small code size and require low routing state to fit the typical
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
6LoWPAN node capacity. Generally speaking, the code size is bounded
by available flash memory size, and the routing table is bounded by
RAM size, possibly limiting it to less than 32 entries.
The RAM size of LoWPAN nodes often ranges between 4 kB (2 kB
minimum) and 10 kB, and program flash memory normally consists of
48 kB to 128 kB. (e.g., in the current market, MICAz has 128 kB
program flash, 4 kB EEPROM, 512 kB external flash ROM; TIP700CM
has 48 kB program flash, 10 kB RAM, 1 MB external flash ROM).
Due to these hardware restrictions, code SHOULD fit within a small
memory size; no more than 48 kB to 128 kB of flash memory
including at least a few tens of KB of application code size. (As
a general observation, a routing protocol of low complexity may
help achieving the goal of reducing power consumption, improves
robustness, requires lower routing state, is easier to analyze,
and may be less prone to security attacks.)
In addition, operation with limited amounts of routing state (such
as routing tables and neighbor lists) SHOULD be maintained since
some typical memory sizes preclude storing state of a large number
of nodes. For instance, industrial monitoring applications may
need to support at maximum 20 hops [RFC5673]. Small networks can
be designed to support a smaller number of hops. While the need
for this is highly dependent on the network architecture, there
should be at least one mode of operation that can function with 32
forwarding entries or less.
[R02] 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD cause minimal power
consumption by the efficient use of control packets (e.g., minimize
expensive IP multicast which causes link broadcast to the entire
LoWPAN) and by the efficient routing of data packets.
One way of battery lifetime optimization is by achieving a minimal
control message overhead. Compared to functions such as
computational operations or taking sensor samples, radio
communications is by far the dominant factor of power consumption
[refs.SmartDust]. Power consumption of transmission and/or
reception depends linearly on the length of data units and on the
frequency of transmission and reception of the data units
[refs.Shih].
The energy consumption of two example RF controllers for low-power
nodes is shown in [refs.Hill]. The TR1000 radio consumes 21 mW
when transmitting at 0.75 mW, and 15 mW on reception (with a
receiver sensitivity of -85 dBm). The CC1000 consumes 31.6 mW
when transmitting 0.75 mW, and 20 mW for receiving (with a
receiver sensitivity of -105 dBm). The power endurance under the
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
concept of an idealized power source is explained in [refs.Hill].
Based on the energy of an idealized AA battery, the CC1000 can
transmit for approximately 4 days straight or receive for 9
consecutive days. Note that availability for reception consumes
power as well.
As multicast may cause flooding in the LoWPAN, a 6LoWPAN routing
protocol SHOULD minimize the control cost by multicasting routing
packets.
Control cost of routing protocols in low power and lossy networks
is discussed in more detail in [I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey].
5.2. Support of 6LoWPAN Link Properties
6LoWPAN links have the characteristics of low data rate and possibly
high loss rates. The routing requirements described in this section
are derived from the link properties.
[R03] 6LoWPAN routing protocol control messages SHOULD NOT exceed a
single IEEE 802.15.4 frame size in order to avoid packet
fragmentation and the overhead for reassembly.
In order to save energy, routing overhead should be minimized to
prevent fragmentation of frames. Therefore, 6LoWPAN routing
should not cause packets to exceed the IEEE 802.15.4 frame size.
This reduces the energy required for transmission, avoids
unnecessary waste of bandwidth, and prevents the need for packet
reassembly. As calculated in RFC4944 [RFC4944], the maximum size
of a 6LoWPAN frame, in order not to cause fragmentation, is 81
octets. This may imply the use of semantic fragmentation and/or
algorithms that can work on small increments of routing
information.
[R04] The design of routing protocols for LoWPANs must consider the
fact that packets are to be delivered with sufficient probability
according to application requirements.
Requirements on successful end-to-end packet delivery ratio (where
delivery may be bounded within certain latency) vary depending on
applications. In industrial applications, some non-critical
monitoring applications may tolerate successful delivery ratio of
less than 90% with hours of latency; in some other cases, a
delivery ratio of 99.9% is required [RFC5673]. In building
automation applications, application layer errors must be below
0.01% [RFC5867].
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Successful end-to-end delivery of packets in an IEEE 802.15.4 mesh
depends on the quality of the path selected by the routing
protocol and on the ability of the routing protocol to cope with
short-term and long-term quality variation. The metric of the
routing protocol strongly influences performance of the routing
protocol in terms of delivery ratio.
The quality of a given path depends on the individual qualities of
the links (including the devices) that compose that path. IEEE
802.15.4 settings affect the quality perceived at upper layers.
In particular, in IEEE 802.15.4 reliable mode, if an
acknowledgment frame is not received after a given period, the
originator retries frame transmission up to a maximum number of
times. If an acknowledgment frame is still not received by the
sender after performing the maximum number of transmission
attempts, the MAC layer assumes the transmission has failed and
notifies the next higher layer of the failure. Note that
excessive retransmission may be detrimental, see RFC 3819
[RFC3819].
[R05] The design of routing protocols for LoWPANs must consider the
latency requirements of applications and IEEE 802.15.4 link latency
characteristics.
Latency requirements may differ from a few hundreds milliseconds
to minutes, depending on the type of application. Real-time
building automation applications usually need response times below
500 ms between egress and ingress, while forced entry security
alerts must be routed to one or more fixed or mobile user devices
within 5 s [RFC5867]. Non-critical closed loop applications for
industrial automation have latency requirements that can be as low
as 100 ms but many control loops are tolerant of latencies above
1 s [RFC5673]. In contrast to this, urban monitoring applications
allow latencies smaller than the typical intervals used for
reporting sensed information; for instance, in the order of
seconds to minutes [RFC5548].
The range of latencies of a frame transmission between a single
sender and a single receiver through an ideal unslotted IEEE
802.15.4 2.4 GHz channel is between 2.46 ms and 6.02 ms in 64 bit
MAC address unreliable mode and 2.20 ms to 6.56 ms in 64 bit
address reliable mode. The range of latencies of 868 MHz band is
from 11.7 ms to 63.7 ms, depending on the address type and
reliable/unreliable mode used. Note that the latencies may be
larger than that depending on channel load, MAC layer settings
procedure, and reliable/unreliable mode choice. Note that other
MAC approaches than the legacy 802.15.4 may be used (e.g. TDMA).
Duty cycling may further affect latency (see [R08]). Depending on
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
the routing path chosen and the network diameter, multiple of
these hops may contribute to the end-to-end latency that
application experience.
Note that a tradeoff exists between [R05] and [R04].
[R06] 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD be robust to dynamic loss
caused by link failure or device unavailability either in the short
term (ca. 30 ms), due to RSSI variation, interference variation,
noise and asynchrony, or in the long term, due to a depleted power
source, hardware breakdown, operating system misbehavior, etc.
An important trait of 6LoWPAN devices is their unreliability due
to limited system capabilities, and also because they might be
closely coupled to the physical world with all its unpredictable
variation. In harsh environments, LoWPANs easily suffer from link
failure. Collision or link failure easily increases send and
receive queues and can lead to queue overflow and packet losses.
For home applications, where users expect feedback after carrying
out actions (such as handling a remote control while moving
around), routing protocols must converge within 2 seconds if the
destination node of the packet has moved and must converge within
0.5 seconds if only the sender has moved [RFC5826]. The tolerance
of the recovery time can vary depending on the application,
however, the routing protocol must provide the detection of short-
term unavailability and long-term disappearance. The routing
protocol has to exploit network resources (e.g. path redundancy)
to offer good network behavior despite of node failure.
Different routing protocols may exhibit different scaling
characteristics with respect to the recovery/convergence time and
the computational resources to achieve recovery after a
convergence, hence see also R01/R10.
[R07] 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD be designed to correctly
operate in the presence of link asymmetry.
Link asymmetry occurs when the probability of successful
transmission between two nodes is significantly higher in one
direction than in the other one. This phenomenon has been
reported in a large number of experimental studies and it is
expected that 6LoWPANs will exhibit link asymmetry.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
5.3. Support of 6LoWPAN Network Characteristics
6LoWPANs can be deployed in different sizes and topologies, adhere to
various models of mobility, be exposed to various levels of
interference, etc. In any case, LoWPANs must maintain low energy
consumption. The requirements described in the following subsection
are derived from the network attributes of 6LoWPANs.
[R08] The design of 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD take into
account that some nodes may be unresponsive during certain time
intervals due to periodic hibernation.
Many nodes in LoWPAN environments might periodically hibernate
(i.e. disable their transceiver activity) in order to save energy.
Therefore, routing protocols must ensure robust packet delivery
despite nodes frequently shutting off their radio transmission
interface. Feedback from the lower IEEE 802.15.4 layer may be
considered to enhance the power-awareness of 6LoWPAN routing
protocols.
CC1000-based nodes must operate at a duty cycle of approximately
2% to survive for one year from idealized AA battery power source
[refs.Hill]. For home automation purposes, it is suggested that
the devices have to maximize the sleep phase with a duty cycle
lower than 1% [RFC5826], while in building automation
applications, batteries must be operational for at least 5 years
when the sensing devices are transmitting data (e.g. 64 bytes)
once per minute [RFC5867].
Dependent on the application in use, packet rates may range from
one per second to one per day or beyond. Routing protocols may
take advantage of knowledge about the packet transmission rate and
utilize this information in calculating routing paths. In many
IEEE 802.15.4 deployments, and in other wireless low-power
technologies, forwarders are mains-powered devices (and hence do
not need to sleep). However, it cannot be assumed that all
forwarders are mains-powered. A routing protocol that addresses
this case SHOULD provide a mode in which power consumption is a
metric. In addition, using nodes in power-saving modes for
forwarding may increase delay and reduce packet delivery
probability, which in this case also should be available as an
input into the path computation.
[R09] The metric used by 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD provide
some flexibility with respect to the inputs provided by the lower
layers and other measures to optimize path selection considering
energy balance and link qualities.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
In homes, buildings, or infrastructure, some nodes will be
installed with mains power. Such power-installed nodes MUST be
considered as relay points for a prominent role in packet
delivery. 6LoWPAN routing protocols MUST know the power
constraints of the nodes.
Simple hop-count-only mechanisms may be inefficient in 6LoWPANs.
There is a Link Quality Indication (LQI), or/and RSSI from IEEE
802.15.4 that may be taken into account for better metrics. The
metric to be used (and its goal) may depend on applications and
requirements.
The numbers in Figure 4 represent the Link Delivery Ratio (LDR) of
each pair of nodes. There are studies that show a piecewise
linear dependence between LQI and LDR [refs.Chen].
0.6
A-------C
\ /
0.9 \ / 0.9
\ /
B
Figure 4: An example network
In this simple example, there are two options in routing from node
A to node C, with the following features:
A. Path AC:
+ (1/0.6) = 1.67 avg. transmissions needed for each packet
(confirmed link layer delivery with retransmissions and
negligible ACK loss have been assumed)
+ one-hop path
+ good in energy consumption and end-to-end latency of data
packets, bad in delivery ratio (0.6)
+ bad in probability of route reconfigurations
B. Path ABC:
+ (1/0.9)+(1/0.9) = 2.22 avg. transmissions needed for each
packet (under the same assumptions as above)
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
+ two-hop path
+ bad in energy consumption and end-to-end latency of data
packets, good in delivery ratio (0.81)
If energy consumption of the network must be minimized, path AC is
the best (this path would be chosen based on a hop count metric).
However, if the delivery ratio in that case is not sufficient, the
best path is ABC (it would be chosen by an LQI based metric).
Combinations of both metrics can be used.
The metric also affects the probability of route reconfiguration.
Route reconfiguration, which may be triggered by packet losses,
may require transmission of routing protocol messages. It is
possible to use a metric aimed at selecting the path with low
route reconfiguration rate by using LQI as an input to the metric.
Such a path has good properties, including stability and low
control message overhead.
Note that a tradeoff exists between [R09] and [R01].
[R10] 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD be designed to achieve both
scalability from a few nodes to maybe millions of nodes and
minimality in terms of used system resources.
A LoWPAN may consist of just a couple of nodes (for instance in a
body-area network), but may also contain much higher numbers of
devices (e.g. monitoring of a city infrastructure or a highway).
For home automation applications it is envisioned that the routing
protocol must support 250 devices in the network [RFC5826], while
routing protocols for metropolitan-scale sensor networks must be
capable of clustering a large number of sensing nodes into regions
containing on the order of 10^2 to 10^4 sensing nodes each
[RFC5548]. It is therefore necessary that routing mechanisms are
designed to be scalable for operation in various network sizes.
However, due to a lack of memory size and computational power,
6LoWPAN routing might limit forwarding entries to a small number,
such as at maximum 32 routing table entries. Specially in large
networks, the routing mechanism MUST be designed in such a way
that the number of routers be smaller than the number of hosts.
[R11] The procedure of route repair and related control messages
SHOULD NOT harm overall energy consumption from the routing
protocols.
Local repair improves throughput and end-to-end latency,
especially in large networks. Since routes are repaired quickly,
fewer data packets are dropped, and a smaller number of routing
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
protocol packet transmissions are needed since routes can be
repaired without source initiated Route Discovery [refs.Lee]. One
important consideration here may be to avoid premature energy
depletion, even in case that impairs other requirements.
[R12] 6LoWPAN routing protocols SHOULD allow for dynamically adaptive
topologies and mobile nodes. When supporting dynamic topologies and
mobile nodes, route maintenance should keep in mind the goal of a
minimal routing state and routing protocol message overhead.
Topological node mobility may be the result of physical movement
and/or of a changing radio environment; making it very likely that
mobility needs to be handled even in a network with physically
static nodes. 6LoWPAN does not make use of a separate protocol to
maintain connectivity to moving nodes but expects the routing
protocol to handle it.
In addition, some nodes may move from one 6LoWPAN to another and
are expected to become functional members of the latter 6LoWPAN in
a limited amount of time.
Building monitoring applications, for instance, have a number of
requirements with respect to recovery and settling time for
mobility that range between 5 and 20 seconds (section 5.3.1 of
[RFC5867]). For more interactive applications such as used in
home automation systems, where users are giving input and expect
instant feedback, mobility requirements are also stricter and, for
moves within a network, a convergence time below 0.5 seconds is
commonly required (section 3.2 of [RFC5826]). In industrial
environments, where mobile equipment such as cranes move around,
the support of vehicular speeds of up to 35 km/h are required to
be supported by the routing protocol [RFC5673]. Currently,
6LoWPANs are not normally being used for such a fast mobility, but
dynamic association and disassociation MUST be supported in
6LoWPAN.
There are several challenges that should be addressed by a 6LoWPAN
routing protocol in order to create robust routing in dynamic
environments:
* Mobile nodes changing their location inside a LoWPAN:
If the nodes' movement pattern is unknown, mobility cannot
easily be detected or distinguished by the routing protocols.
Mobile nodes can be treated as nodes that disappear and re-
appear in another place. Movement pattern tracking increases
complexity and can be avoided by handling moving nodes using
reactive route updates.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
* Movement of a LoWPAN with respect to other (inter)connected
LoWPANs:
Within each stub network, (one or more) relatively powerful
gateway nodes (6LBRs) need to be configured to handle moving
LoWPANs.
* Nodes permanently joining or leaving the LoWPAN:
In order to ease routing table updates, reduce their size, and
minimize error control messages, nodes leaving the network may
announce their disassociation to the closest edge router or, if
any, to a specific node that takes charge of local association
and disassociation.
[R13] A 6LoWPAN routing protocol SHOULD support various traffic
patterns: point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, and multipoint-to-
point, while avoiding excessive multicast traffic in a LoWPAN.
6LoWPANs often have point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-point
traffic patterns. Many emerging applications include point-to-
point communication as well. 6LoWPAN routing protocols should be
designed with the consideration of forwarding packets from/to
multiple sources/destinations. Current documents of the ROLL
working group explain that the workload or traffic pattern of use
cases for LoWPANs tends to be highly structured, unlike the any-
to-any data transfers that dominate typical client and server
workloads. In many cases, exploiting such structure may simplify
difficult problems arising from resource constraints or variation
in connectivity.
5.4. Support of Security
The routing requirement described in this subsection allows secure
transmission of routing messages. As in traditional networks,
routing mechanisms in 6lowpan present another window from which, an
attacker might disrupt and significantly degrade the 6lowpan overall
performance. Attacks against unsecure routing aim mainly to
contaminate WPAN networks with false routing information resulting in
routing inconsistencies. A malicious node can also snoop packets and
then launch replay attacks on the 6lowpan nodes. These attacks can
cause harm especially when the attacker is a high-power device, such
as laptop. It can also easily drain 6lowpan devices batteries by
sending broadcast messages, redirecting routes etc.
[R14] 6LoWPAN routing protocols MUST support confidentiality,
authentication and integrity services as required for secure delivery
of control messages.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
A general set of requirements that may apply to these services can
be found in [I-D.ietf-karp-threats-reqs].
Security is very important for designing robust routing protocols,
but it should not cause significant transmission overhead. The
security aspect, however, seems a bit tradeoff in the 6lowpan
since security is always a costly function. 6lowpan poses unique
challenges to which, traditional security techniques cannot be
applied directly. For example, public key cryptography primitives
are typically avoided (as being too expensive) as are relatively
heavyweight conventional encryption methods.
Consequently, it becomes questionable whether the 6lowpan devices
can support IPsec as it is. While IPsec is mandatory with IPv6,
considering the power constraints and limited processing
capabilities of IEEE 802.15.4 capable devices, IPsec is
computationally expensive; Internet key exchange (IKEv2) messaging
described in RFC5996 [RFC5996] will not work well in 6lowpans as
we want to minimize the amount of signaling in these networks.
IPsec supports AH for authenticating the IP header and ESP for
authenticating and encrypting the payload. The main issues of
using IPsec are two-fold: (1) processing power and (2) key
management. Since these tiny 6lowpan devices do not process huge
number of data or communicate with many different nodes, it is not
well understood if complete implementation of SADB, policy-
database and dynamic key-management protocol are appropriate for
these small battery powered devices.
Bandwidth is a very scarce resource in 6lowpan environments. The
fact that IPsec additionally requires another header (AH or ESP)
in every packet makes its use problematic in 6lowpan environments.
IPsec requires two communicating peers to share a secret key that
is typically established dynamically with the Internet Key
Exchange (IKEv2) protocol. Thus, it has an additional packet
overhead incurred by IKEv2 packets exchange.
Given existing constraints in 6lowpan environments, IPsec may not
be suitable to use in such environments, especially that 6lowpan
node may not be able to operate all IPsec algorithms on its own
capability. Thus, 6lowpan may need to define its own keying
management method(s) that requires minimum overhead in packet-size
and in number of signaling messages exchange. IPsec will provide
authentication and confidentiality between end-nodes and across
multiple lowpan- links, and may be useful only when two nodes want
to apply security to all exchanged messages. However, in most
cases, the security may be requested at the application layer as
needed, while other messages can flow in the network without
security overhead.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Security threats within LoWPANs may be different from existing
threat models in ad-hoc network environments. If IEEE 802.15.4
security is not used, Neighbor Discovery (ND) in IEEE 802.15.4
links is susceptible to threats. These include NS/NA spoofing,
malicious router, default router killed, good router goes bad,
spoofed redirect, replay attacks and remote ND DoS [RFC3756].
However, if IEEE 802.15.4 security is used, no other protection is
needed for ND, as long as none of the nodes becomes compromised,
because the Corporate Intranet Model of RFC 3756 can be assumed
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd].
Bootstrapping may also impose additional threats. For example, a
malicious node can obtain initial configuration information in
order to appear as a legitimate node and then carry out various
types of attacks. Such a node can also keep legitimate nodes busy
by broadcasting authentication/join requests. One option for
mitigating such threats is the use of mutual authentication
schemes based on the use of pre-shared keys [refs.Ikram].
The IEEE 802.15.4 MAC provides an AES-based security mechanism.
Routing protocols may define how this mechanism (in conjunction
with IP security whenever available) can be used to obtain the
intended security, either for the routing protocol alone or in
conjunction with the security used for the data. Byte overhead of
the mechanism, which depends on the security services selected,
must be considered. In the worst case in terms of overhead, the
mechanism consumes 21 bytes of MAC payload.
The IEEE 802.15.4 MAC security is typically supported by crypto
hardware even in very simple chips that will be used in a 6LoWPAN.
Even if the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC security mechanisms are not used,
this crypto hardware is usually available for use by application
code running on these chips. A security protocol outside IEEE
802.15.4 MAC security SHOULD therefore provide a mode of operation
that is covered by this crypto hardware.
IEEE 802.15.4 does not specify protection for acknowledgement
frames. Since the sequence numbers of data frames are sent in the
clear, an adversary can forge an acknowledgement for each data
frame. This weakness can be combined with targeted jamming to
prevent delivery of selected packets. In consequence, IEEE
802.15.4 acknowledgements cannot be relied upon. In applications
that require high security, the routing protocol must not exploit
feedback from acknowledgements (e.g. to keep track of neighbor
connectivity, see [R16]).
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
5.5. Support of Mesh Under Forwarding
One LoWPAN may be built as one IPv6 link. In this case, Mesh Under
forwarding mechanisms must be supported. The requirements described
in this subsection allow optimization and correct operation of
routing solutions taking into account the specific features of the
Mesh Under configuration.
[R15] For Mesh Under, the forwarding mechanisms MUST support 16-bit
short and 64-bit extended MAC addresses.
[R16] In order to perform discovery and maintenance of neighbors
(i.e., neighborhood discovery as opposed to ND-style neighbor
discovery), LoWPAN Nodes SHOULD avoid sending separate "Hello"
messages. Instead, link-layer mechanisms (such as acknowledgments)
MAY be utilized to keep track of active neighbors.
Reception of an acknowledgement after a frame transmission may
render unnecessary the transmission of explicit Hello messages,
for example. In a more general view, any frame received by a node
may be used as an input to evaluate the connectivity between the
sender and receiver of that frame.
[R17] If the routing protocol functionality includes enabling IP
multicast, then it MAY employ structure in the network for efficient
distribution in order to minimize link layer broadcast.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
6. Security Considerations
Security issues are described in Section 5.4. The security
considerations in RFC 4919 [RFC4919], RFC 4944 [RFC4944] and RFC 4593
[RFC4593] apply as well.
The use of wireless links renders a 6LoWPAN susceptible to attacks
like any other wireless network. In outdoor 6LoWPANs, the physical
exposure of the nodes allows an adversary to capture, clone or tamper
with these devices. In ad-hoc 6LoWPANs that are dynamic in both
their topology and node memberships, a static security configuration
does not suffice. Spoofed, altered, or replayed routing information
might occur while multihopping could delay the detection and
treatment of attacks.
This specification expects that the link layer is sufficiently
protected, either by means of physical or IP security for the
backbone link or with MAC sublayer cryptography. However, link-layer
encryption and authentication may not be sufficient to provide
confidentiality, authentication, integrity, and freshness to both
data and routing protocol packets. Time synchronization, self-
organization and secure localization for multi-hop routing are also
critical to support.
For secure routing protocol operation, it may be necessary to
consider authenticated broadcast (and multicast) and bidirectional
link verification. On the other hand, secure end-to-end data
delivery can be assisted by the routing protocol. For example,
multi-path routing could be considered for increasing security to
prevent selective forwarding. However, the challenge is that
6LoWPANs already have high resource constraints, so that 6LBR and
LoWPAN nodes may require different security solutions.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
7. IANA Considerations
This document contains no actions for IANA.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
8. Acknowledgements
The authors highly appreciate the authors of "6LoWPAN security
analysis" document (draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis-04).
Although their security analysis work is not continuous at this
moment, the valuable information and text of the docuement is used in
Section 5.4 in this docuement, by advice during IESG review
procedures. Thanks to the work, the Section 5.4 is well improved.
The authors also thank S. Chakrabarti who gave valuable comments for
mesh-under requirements and A. Petrescu for significant review.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IEEE802.15.4]
IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2006 (as
amended)", 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756,
May 2004.
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, July 2004.
[RFC4593] Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to
Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, October 2006.
[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, August 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC5548] Dohler, M., Watteyne, T., Winter, T., and D. Barthel,
"Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy
Networks", RFC 5548, May 2009.
[RFC5673] Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney,
"Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy
Networks", RFC 5673, October 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc]
Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks", draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-13
(work in progress), September 2010.
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd]
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., and E. Nordmark, "Neighbor
Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-14 (work in progress), October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-karp-threats-reqs]
Lebovitz, G., Bhatia, M., and R. White, "The Threat
Analysis and Requirements for Cryptographic Authentication
of Routing Protocols' Transports",
draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-01 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey]
Tavakoli, A., Dawson-Haggerty, S., and P. Levis, "Overview
of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07 (work in
progress), April 2009.
[RFC5556] Touch, J. and R. Perlman, "Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability
Statement", RFC 5556, May 2009.
[RFC5826] Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation
Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks",
RFC 5826, April 2010.
[RFC5867] Martocci, J., De Mil, P., Riou, N., and W. Vermeylen,
"Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 5867, June 2010.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, September 2010.
[refs.Chen]
Chen, B., Muniswamy-Reddy, K., and M. Welsh, "Ad-Hoc
Multicast Routing on Resource-Limited Sensor Nodes", 2006.
[refs.Hill]
Hill, J., "System Architecture for Wireless Sensor
Networks".
[refs.Ikram]
Ikram, M., "A Simple Lightweight Authentic Bootstrapping
Protocol for IPv6-based Low Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (6LoWPANs)", June 2009.
[refs.Kuhn]
Kuhn, F., Wattenhofer, R., and A. Zollinger, "Worst-Case
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Optimal and Average-Case Efficient Ad-Hoc Geometric
Routing", 2003.
[refs.Latre]
Latre, M., De Mil, P., Moerman, I., Dhoedt, B., and P.
Demeester, "Throughput and Delay Analysis of Unslotted
IEEE 802.15.4", May 2006.
[refs.Lee]
Lee, S., Belding-Royer, E., and C. Perkins, "Scalability
Study of the Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance-Vector Routing
Protocol", March 2003.
[refs.Shih]
Shih, E., "Physical Layer Driven Protocols and Algorithm
Design for Energy-Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks",
July 2001.
[refs.SmartDust]
Pister, K. and B. Boser, "Smart Dust: Wireless Networks of
Millimeter-Scale Sensor Nodes".
[refs.bulusu]
Bulusu, N. and S. Jha, "Wireless Sensor Networks",
July 2005.
[refs.cctc]
Lu, J., Valois, F., Dohler, M., and D. Barthel,
"Quantifying Organization by Means of Entropy", 2008.
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft 6LoWPAN Routing Requirements November 2010
Authors' Addresses
Eunsook Eunah Kim
ETRI
161 Gajeong-dong
Yuseong-gu
Daejeon 305-700
Korea
Phone: +82-42-860-6124
Email: eunah.ietf@gmail.com
Dominik Kaspar
Simula Research Laboratory
Martin Linges v 17
Fornebu 1364
Norway
Phone: +47-6782-8223
Email: dokaspar.ietf@gmail.com
Carles Gomez
Tech. Univ. of Catalonia/i2CAT
Escola Politecnica Superior de Castelldefels
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
Castelldefels 08860
Spain
Phone: +34-93-413-7206
Email: carlesgo@entel.upc.edu
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Fax: +49-421-218-7000
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Kim, et al. Expires May 12, 2011 [Page 34]
