6TiSCH                                                   P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                             T. Watteyne
Expires: September 10, 2015                            Linear Technology
                                                               R. Struik
                                             Struik Security Consultancy
                                                           M. Richardson
                                                           March 9, 2015

     An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e


   This document presents an architecture for an IPv6 Multi-Link subnet
   that is composed of a high speed powered backbone and a number of
   IEEE802.15.4e TSCH wireless networks attached and synchronized by
   Backbone Routers.  The TSCH schedule can be static or dynamic.
   6TiSCH defines mechanisms to establish and maintain the routing and
   scheduling operations in a centralized, distributed, or mixed

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 September 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Applications and Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Dependencies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  6LoWPAN (and RPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  RPL Leaf Support in 6LoWPAN ND  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  registration Failures Due to Movement . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  Proxy registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.4.  Target Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.5.  RPL root vs. 6LBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.6.  Securing the Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Communication Paradigms and Interaction Models  . . . . . . .  15
   8.  TSCH and 6top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.1.  6top  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.2.  6top and RPL Objective Function operations  . . . . . . .  16
     8.3.  Network Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.4.  SlotFrames and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.5.  Distributing the reservation of cells . . . . . . . . . .  20
   9.  Schedule Management Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.1.  Static Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.2.  Neighbor-to-neighbor Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.3.  remote Monitoring and Schedule Management . . . . . . . .  23
     9.4.  Hop-by-hop Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   10. Forwarding Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     10.1.  Track Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       10.1.1.  Transport Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       10.1.2.  Tunnel Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       10.1.3.  Tunnel Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.2.  Fragment Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     10.3.  IPv6 Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   11. Centralized vs. Distributed Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.1.  Packet Marking and Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     13.1.  Join Process Highlights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     14.1.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     14.2.  Special Thanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     14.3.  And Do not Forget  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     15.3.  Other Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Appendix A.  Personal submissions relevant to the next volumes  .  41
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41

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
   per device compared to traditional wired technology, at any distance
   ranging from Near Field to interplanetary, and in circumstances where
   wiring may not appear practical, for instance on rotating devices.

   At the same time, a new breed of Time Sensitive Networks is being
   developed to enable traffic that is highly sensitive to jitter, quite
   sensitive to latency, and with a high degree of operational
   criticality so that loss should be minimized at all times.  Such
   traffic is not limited to professional Audio/ Video networks, but is
   also found in command and control operations such as industrial
   automation and vehicular sensors and actuators.

   At IEEE802.1, the Audio/Video Task Group [IEEE802.1TSNTG] Time
   Sensitive Networking (TSN) to address Deterministic Ethernet.  The
   IEEE802.15.4 Medium access Control (MAC) has evolved with the new
   IEEE802.15.4e TimeSlotted Channel Hopping (TSCH)
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] mode for deterministic industrial-type

   Though at a different time scale, both TSN and TSCH standards provide
   Deterministic capabilities to the point that a packet that pertains
   to a certain flow crosses the network from node to node following a
   very precise schedule, as a train that leaves intermediate stations
   at precise times along its path.  With TSCH, time is formatted into
   timeSlots, and an individual cell is allocated to unicast or
   broadcast communication at the MAC level.  The time-slotted operation
   reduces collisions, saves energy, and enables to more closely
   engineer the network for deterministic properties.  The channel
   hopping aspect is a simple and efficient technique to combat
   multipath fading and external interference (for example by Wi-Fi

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   This document is the first volume of an architecture for an IPv6
   Multi-Link subnet that is composed of a high speed powered backbone
   and a number of IEEE802.15.4e TSCH wireless networks attached and
   synchronized by backbone routers.  Route Computation may be achieved
   in a centralized fashion by a Path Computation Element (PCE) [PCE],
   in a distributed fashion using the Routing Protocol for Low Power and
   Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC6550], or in a mixed mode.  The Backbone
   Routers may perform proxy IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861]
   operations over the backbone on behalf of the wireless devices (also
   called motes), so they can share a same IPv6 subnet and appear to be
   connected to the same backbone as classical devices.  The Backbone
   Routers may alternatively redistribute the registration in a routing
   protocol such as OSPF [RFC5340] or BGP [RFC2545], or inject them in a
   mobility protocol such as MIPv6 [RFC6275], NEMO [RFC3963], or LISP

   TimeSlots and other device resources are managed by an abstract
   Network Management Entity (NME), which may cooperate with the PCE in
   order to minimize the interaction with and the load on the
   constrained device.

   Hints are provided on a security framework that will be completed in
   the round of this document.

2.  Terminology

   Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
   that are discussed in "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6"
   [RFC4861], "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
   (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals"
   [RFC4919], Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy
   Networks [RFC6775] where the 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) and the 6LoWPAN
   Border Router (6LBR) are introduced, and "Multi-link Subnet Support
   in IPv6" [I-D.ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets].

   Readers may benefit from reading the "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
   Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] specification; "Multi-Link
   Subnet Issues" [RFC4903]; "Mobility Support in IPv6" [RFC6275];
   "Neighbor Discovery Proxies (ND Proxy)" [RFC4389]; "IPv6 Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862]; "FCFS SAVI: First-Come, First-
   Served Source Address Validation Improvement for Locally Assigned
   IPv6 Addresses" [RFC6620]; and "Optimistic Duplicate Address
   Detection" [RFC4429] prior to this specification for a clear
   understanding of the art in ND-proxying and binding.

   The draft uses terminology defined or referenced in

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability], [RFC4080], and

   The draft also conforms to the terms and models described in
   [RFC3444] and [RFC5889] and uses the vocabulary and the concepts
   defined in [RFC4291] for the IPv6 Architecture.

3.  Applications and Goals

   Some aspects of this architecture derive from existing industrial
   standards for Process Control such as ISA100.11a [ISA100.11a]and
   WirelessHART [WirelessHART], by its focus on Deterministic
   Networking, in particular with the use of the IEEE802.15.4e
   [IEEE802154e] TSCH MAC and a centralized PCE.  This approach
   leverages the TSCH MAC benefits for high reliability against
   interference, low-power consumption on deterministic traffic, and its
   Traffic Engineering capabilities.  In such applications,
   Deterministic Networking applies mainly to control loops and movement
   detection, but it can also be used for supervisory control flows and

   An incremental set of industrial requirements is addressed with the
   addition of an autonomic and distributed routing operation based on
   RPL.  These use-cases include plant setup and decommissioning, as
   well as monitoring of lots of lesser importance measurements such as
   corrosion and events.  RPL also enables mobile use cases such as
   mobile workers and cranes, as discussed in

   A Backbone Router is included in order to scale the factory plant
   subnet to address large deployments, with proxy ND and time
   synchronization over a high speed backbone.

   The architecture also applies to building automation that leverage
   RPL's storing mode to address multipath over a large number of hops,
   in-vehicle command and control that can be as demanding as industrial
   applications, commercial automation and asset Tracking with mobile
   scenarios, home automation and domotics which become more reliable
   and thus provide a better user experience, and resource management
   (energy, water, etc.).

4.  Overview

   The scope of the present work is a subnet that, in its basic
   configuration, is made of a TSCH [I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch] MAC Low Power
   Lossy Network (LLN).

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

               ---+-------- ............ ------------
                  |      External Network       |
                  |                          +-----+
               +-----+                       | NME |
               |     | LLN Border            |     |
               |     | router                +-----+
             o    o   o
      o     o   o     o
         o   o LLN   o    o     o
            o   o   o       o

             Figure 1: Basic Configuration of a 6TiSCH Network

   The LLN devices communicate over IPv6 [RFC2460] using the 6LoWPAN
   Header Compression ( 6LoWPAN HC) [RFC6282].  From the perspective of
   Layer-3, a single LLN interface (typically an IEEE802.15.4-compliant
   radio) may be seen as a collection of Links with different
   capabilities for unicast or multicast services.  An IPv6 subnet spans
   over multiple links, effectively forming a Multi-Link subnet.  Within
   that subnet, neighbor devices are discovered with 6LoWPAN Neighbor
   Discovery [RFC6775] (6LoWPAN ND).  RPL [RFC6550] enables routing
   within the LLN, in the so called Route Over fashion, either in
   storing (stateful) or non-storing (stateless, with routing headers)

   RPL forms Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs)
   within Instances of the protocol, each Instance being associated with
   an Objective Function (OF) to form a routing topology.  A particular
   LLN device, the LLN Border Router (LBR), acts as RPL root, 6LoWPAN HC
   terminator, and Border Router for the LLN to the outside.  The LBR is
   usually powered.  More on RPL Instances can be found in section 3.1
   of RPL [RFC6550], in particular "3.1.2.  RPL Identifiers" and "3.1.3.
   Instances, DODAGs, and DODAG Versions".

   An extended configuration of the subnet comprises multiple LLNs.  The
   LLNs are interconnected and synchronized over a backbone, that can be
   wired or wireless.  The backbone can be a classical IPv6 network,
   with Neighbor Discovery operating as defined in [RFC4861] and
   [RFC4862].  This architecture suggests new work to standardize the
   participation of non-RPL leaves and the registration to backbone
   routers for proxy operations.  For instance, the registration
   backbone could be based on Efficiency-aware IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
   Optimizations [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] in mixed
   mode as described in [I-D.thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router].

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   Security is often handled at Layer-2 and Layer 4.  Authentication
   during the process on joining or re-joining the network is discussed
   in Section 13 and the applicability of existing protocols such as the
   Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network access (PANA)
   [RFC5191] will be studied in a next volume of this document.

   The LLN devices are time-synchronized at the MAC level.  The LBR that
   serves as time source is a RPL parent in a particular RPL Instance
   that serves for time synchronization; this way, the time
   synchronization starts at the RPL root and follows the RPL DODAGs
   with no timing loop.

   In the extended configuration, a Backbone Router (6BBR) acts as an
   Energy Aware Default Router (NEAR) as defined in
   [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd].  The 6BBR performs ND
   proxy operations between the registered devices and the classical ND
   devices that are located over the backbone.  6TiSCH 6BBRs synchronize
   with one another over the backbone, so as to ensure that the multiple
   LLNs that form the IPv6 subnet stay tightly synchronized.

                  ---+-------- ............ ------------
                     |      External Network       |
                     |                          +-----+
                     |             +-----+      | NME |
                  +-----+          |  +-----+   |     |
                  |     | Router   |  | PCE |   +-----+
                  |     |          +--|     |
                  +-----+             +-----+
                     |                   |
                     | Subnet Backbone   |
               |                    |                  |
            +-----+             +-----+             +-----+
            |     | Backbone    |     | Backbone    |     | Backbone
       o    |     | router      |     | router      |     | router
            +-----+             +-----+             +-----+
       o                  o                   o                 o   o
           o    o   o         o   o  o   o         o  o   o    o
      o             o        o  LLN      o      o         o      o
         o   o    o      o      o o     o  o   o    o    o     o

           Figure 2: Extended Configuration of a 6TiSCH Network

   In order to serve nodes that are multiple hops away, an integrated
   RPL root and 6LBR may be collocated with the 6BBR, or attached to the
   6BBR in which case they would perform the registration on behalf of
   the remote LLN nodes - they proxy the efficient ND registration over

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   the LLN in order for the 6BBR to perform proxy ND operations over the

   If the Backbone is Deterministic (such as defined by the Time
   Sensitive Networking WG at IEEE), then the Backbone Router ensures
   that the end-to-end deterministic behavior is maintained between the
   LLN and the backbone.  Note: A DetNet - for Deterministic Networking
   - Mailing List was formed at the IETF to study Layer-3 aspects of the
   technology, and cover networks that span multiple Layer-2 domains.

5.  Scope

5.1.  Components

   In order to control the complexity and the size of the 6TiSCH work,
   the architecture and the associated IETF work are staged in volumes.
   This document covers the first stage of the work, as specified by the
   WG charter.  If the work continues as expected, further volumes will
   complete this piece and provide the full coverage of IPv6 over TSCH.

   The main architectural blocks are represented below to help detail
   what is covered and what is not yet covered from the global 6TiSCH
   architecture by this initial volume:

            |     |COMI/|
            |TEAS |CCAMP|
      |PCEP |   CoAP    |PANA |6LoWPAN| RPL |
      | PCE |  / DICE   | ACE |   ND  |     |
      | TCP |       UDP       |    ICMP     |
      |                 IPv6                      |
      |  6LoWPAN adaptation and compression (HC)  |
      |                   6top                    |
      |             IEEE802.15.4e   TSCH          |

                Figure 3: Envisioned 6TiSCH protocol stack

   RPL is the routing protocol of choice for LLNs.  So far, there was no
   identified need to define a 6TiSCH specific Objective Function.  The
   Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal]describes the
   operation of RPL over a static schedule used in a slotted aloha

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   fashion, whereby all active slots may be used for emission or
   reception of both unicast and multicast frames.  The architecture of
   the operation of RPL over a dynamic schedule is deferred to a
   subsequent volume of the architecture.

   6TiSCH has adopted the general direction of CoAP Management Interface
   (COMI) [I-D.vanderstok-core-comi] for the management of devices.
   This is leveraged for instance for the implementation of the generic
   data model for the 6top sublayer management interface
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface].  The proposed implementation is
   based on CoAP and CBOR, and specified in 6TiSCH Resource Management
   and Interaction using CoAP [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap].  At the time of
   this writing, COMI and the dependent specifications are still work in
   progress at this time, and DTLS In Constrained Environments (DICE)
   [DICE] is the probable way LLN nodes will provide end-to-end security
   for UDP/CoAP packets.

   The work on centralized track computation is deferred to a subsequent
   volume of the architecture.  The Path Computation Element (PCE) is
   certainly the core component of that architecture.  Around the PCE, a
   protocol such as an extension to a TEAS [TEAS] protocol (maybe
   running over CoAP as illustrated) will be required to expose the
   device capabilities and the network peers to the PCE, and a protocol
   such as a lightweight PCEP or an adaptation of CCAMP [CCAMP] G-MPLS
   formats and procedures will be used to publish the tracks, computed
   by the PCE, to the devices (maybe in a fashion similar to RSVP-TE).

   There is a debate whether PANA (Layer-3), IEEE802.1x (Layer-2) or
   some light weight variation of those should be used in the join
   process.  There is also a debate whether the node should be able to
   send any unprotected packet on the medium.  Regardless, the security
   model must ensure that, prior to a join process, packets from a
   untrusted device must be controlled in volume and in reachability.
   This piece of the architecture is also deferred to a subsequent
   volume of the architecture.  A status of the work can be found in
   Section 13.

   The 6TiSCH Operation sublayer (6top) [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer]
   is an Logical Link Control (LLC) or a portion thereof that provides
   the abstraction of an IP link over a TSCH MAC.  The work on the
   operations of that layer, in particular related to dynamic
   scheduling, is only introduced here, and should be detailed further
   in a subsequent volume of the architecture.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

5.2.  Dependencies

   At the time of this writing, the components and protocols that are
   required to implement this stage of architecture are not fully
   available from the IETF.  In particular, the requirements on an
   evolution of 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery that are needed to implement
   the Backbone Router as covered by this stage of the architecture are
   detailed in [I-D.thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs].

   The 6TiSCH Architecture extends the concepts of Deterministic
   Networking on a Layer-3 network.  Work has started on this general
   problem with the DetNet Mailing lists and associated discussions.
   The 6TiSCH Architecture should inherit from that work and thus
   depends on it.  In turn, DetNet must integrate and maintain
   consistency with the work that has taken place and is continuing at
   IEEE802.1TSN and AVnu.

   The current charter positions 6TiSCH on IEEE802.15.4 only.  Though
   most of the design should be portable on other link types, 6TiSCH has
   a strong dependency on IEEE802.15.4 and its evolution.  A new version
   of the IEEE802.15.4 standard is expected in 2015.  That version
   should integrate TSCH as well as other amendments and fixes into the
   main specification.  The impact on this Architecture should be
   minimal to non-existent, but deeper work such as 6top and security
   may be impacted.  A 6TiSCH Interest Group was formed at IEEE to
   maintain the synchronization and help foster work at the IEEE should
   6TiSCH demand it.

   ISA100 [ISA100] Common Network Management (CNM) is another external
   work of interest for 6TiSCH.  The group, referred to as ISA100.20,
   defines a Common Network Management framework that should enable the
   management of resources that are controlled by heterogeneous
   protocols such as ISA100.11a [ISA100.11a], WirelessHART
   [WirelessHART], and 6TiSCH.  Interestingly, the establishment of
   6TiSCH Deterministic paths, called tracks, are also in scope, and
   ISA100.20 is working on requirements for DetNet.

6.  6LoWPAN (and RPL)

   This architecture expects that a 6LoWPAN node can connect as a leaf
   to a RPL network, where the leaf support is the minimal functionality
   to connect as a host to a RPL network without the need to participate
   to the full routing protocol.  The support of leaf can be implemented
   as a minor increment to 6LoWPAN ND, with the additional capability to
   carry a sequence number that is used to track the movements of the
   device, and optionally some information about the RPL topology that
   this device will join.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   The root of the RPL network is integrated with the 6LoWPAN ND 6LBR,
   but it is logically separated from the 6BBR that is used to connect
   the RPL topology to the backbone.  The RPL root can use Efficient ND
   as the interface to register an LLN node in its topology to the 6BBR
   for whatever operation the 6BBR performs, such as ND proxy
   operations, or injection in a routing protocol.  It results that, as
   illustrated in Figure 4, the periodic signaling could start at the
   leaf node with 6LoWPAN ND, then would be carried over RPL to the RPL
   root, and then with Efficient-ND to the 6BBR.  Efficient ND being an
   adaptation of 6LoWPAN ND, it makes sense to keep those two
   homogeneous in the way they use the source and the target addresses
   in the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages for registration, as well
   as in the options that they use for that process.

    6LoWPAN Node        6LR             6LBR            6BBR
     (RPL leaf)       (router)         (root)
         |               |               |               |
         |  6LoWPAN ND   |6LoWPAN ND+RPL | Efficient ND  | IPv6 ND
         |   LLN link    |Route-Over mesh|  IPv6 link    | Backbone
         |               |               |               |
         |  NS(ARO)      |               |               |
         |-------------->|               |               |
         | 6LoWPAN ND    | DAR (then DAO)|               |
         |               |-------------->|               |
         |               |               |  NS(ARO)      |
         |               |               |-------------->|
         |               |               |               | DAD
         |               |               |               |------>
         |               |               |               |
         |               |               |  NA(ARO)      |
         |               |               |<--------------|
         |               | DAC           |               |
         |               |<--------------|               |
         |  NA(ARO)      |               |               |
         |<--------------|               |               |

          Figure 4: (Re-)Registration Flow over Multi-Link Subnet

   As the network builds up, a node should start as a leaf to join the
   RPL network, and may later turn into both a RPL-capable router and a
   6LR, so as to accept leaf nodes to recursively join the network.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

6.1.  RPL Leaf Support in 6LoWPAN ND

   RPL needs a set of information in order to advertise a leaf node
   through a DAO message and establish reachability.

   At the bare minimum the leaf device must provide a sequence number
   that matches the RPL specification in section 7.  Section 4.1 of
   [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd], on the Address
   Registration Option (ARO), already incorporates that addition with a
   new field in the option called the Transaction ID.

   If for some reason the node is aware of RPL topologies, then
   providing the RPL InstanceID for the instances to which the node
   wishes to participate would be a welcome addition.  In the absence of
   such information, the RPL router must infer the proper instanceID
   from external rules and policies.

   On the backbone, the InstanceID is expected to be mapped onto a
   VLANID.  Neither WiFi nor Efficient ND do provide a mapping to
   VLANIDs, and it is unclear, when a wireless node attaches to a
   backbone where VLANs are defined, which VLAN the wireless device
   attaches to.  Considering that a VLAN is effectively the IP link on
   the backbone, adding the InstanceID to both specifications could be a
   welcome addition.

6.2.  registration Failures Due to Movement

   Registration to the 6LBR through DAR/DAC messages [RFC6775] may
   percolate slowly through an LLN mesh, and it might happen that in the
   meantime, the 6LoWPAN node moves and registers somewhere else.  Both
   RPL and 6LoWPAN ND lack the capability to indicate that the same node
   is registered elsewhere, so as to invalidate states down the
   deprecated path.

   In its current expression and functionality, 6LoWPAN ND considers
   that the registration is used for the purpose of DAD only as opposed
   to that of achieving reachability, and as long as the same node
   registers the IPv6 address, the protocol is functional.  In order to
   act as a RPL leaf registration protocol and achieve reachability, the
   device must use the same TID for all its concurrent registrations,
   and registrations with a past TID should be declined.  The state for
   an obsolete registration in the 6LR, as well as the RPL routers on
   the way, should be invalidated.  This can only be achieved with the
   addition of a new Status in the DAC message, and a new error/clean-up
   flow in RPL.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

6.3.  Proxy registration

   The 6BBR provides the capability to defend an address that is owned
   by a 6LoWPAN Node, and attract packets to that address, whether it is
   done by proxying ND over a MultiLink Subnet, redistributing the
   address in a routing protocol or advertising it through an alternate
   proxy registration such as the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
   [RFC6830] (LISP) or Mobility Support in IPv6 [RFC6275] (MIPv6).  In a
   LLN, it makes sense to piggyback the request to proxy/defend an
   address with its registration.

6.4.  Target Registration

   In their current incarnations, both 6LoWPAN ND and Efficient ND
   expect that the address being registered is the source of the NS(ARO)
   message and thus impose that a Source Link-Layer Address (SLLA)
   option be present in the message.  In a mesh scenario where the 6LBR
   is physically separated from the 6LoWPAN Node, the 6LBR does not own
   the address being registered.  This suggests that
   [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] should evolve to
   register the Target of the NS message as opposed to the Source
   Address.  From another perspective, it may happen, in the use case of
   a Star topology, that the 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBR are effectively
   collapsed and should support 6LoWPAN ND clients.  The convergence of
   efficient ND and 6LoWPAN ND into a single protocol is thus highly

   In any case, as long as the DAD process is not complete for the
   address used as source of the packet, it is against the current
   practice to advertise the SLLA, since this may corrupt the ND cache
   of the destination node, as discussed in the Optimistic DAD
   specification [RFC4429] with regards to the TENTATIVE state.

   This may look like a chicken and an egg problem, but in fact 6LoWPAN
   ND acknowledges that the Link-Local Address that is based on an
   EUI-64 address of a LLN node may be autoconfigured without the need
   for DAD.  It results that a node could use that Address as source,
   with an SLLA option in the message if required, to register any other
   addresses, either Global or Unique-Local Addresses, which would be
   indicated in the Target.

   The suggested change is to register the target of the NS message, and
   use Target Link-Layer Address (TLLA) in the NS as opposed to the SLLA
   in order to install a Neighbor Cache Entry.  This would apply to both
   Efficient ND and 6LoWPAN ND in a very same manner, with the caveat
   that depending on the nature of the link between the 6LBR and the
   6BBR, the 6LBR may resort to classical ND or DHCPv6 to obtain the

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   address that it uses to source the NS registration messages, whether
   for itself or on behalf of LLN nodes.

6.5.  RPL root vs. 6LBR

   6LoWPAN ND is unclear on how the 6LBR is discovered, and how the
   liveliness of the 6LBR is asserted over time.  On the other hand, the
   discovery and liveliness of the RPL root are obtained through the RPL

   When 6LoWPAN ND is coupled with RPL, it makes sense to collocate the
   6LBR and the RPL root functionalities.  The DAR/DAC exchange becomes
   a preamble to the DAO messages that are used from then on to
   reconfirm the registration, thus eliminating a duplication of
   functionality between DAO and DAR messages.

6.6.  Securing the Registration

   A typical attack against IPv6 ND is address spoofing, whereby a rogue
   node claims the IPv6 Address of another node in and hijacks its

   SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971] is designed to protect
   each individual ND lookup/advertisement in a peer to peer model where
   each lookup may be between different parties.  This is not the case
   in a 6LoWPAN ND LLN where, as illustrated in Figure 4, the 6LBR
   terminates all the flows and may store security information for later

   Additionally SEND requires considerably enlarged ND messages to carry
   cryptographic material, and requires that each protected address is
   generated cryptographically, which implies the computation of a
   different key for each Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA).
   SEND as defined in [RFC3971] is thus largely unsuitable for
   application in a LLN.

   Once an Address is registered, the 6LBR maintains a state for that
   Address and is in position to bind securely the first registration
   with the Node that placed it, whether the Address is CGA or not.  It
   should thus be possible to protect the ownership of all the addresses
   of a 6LoWPAN Node with a single key, and there should not be a need
   to carry the cryptographic material more than once to the 6LBR.

   The energy constraint is usually a foremost factor, and attention
   should be paid to minimize the burden on the CPU.  Hardware-assisted
   support of variants of the Counter with CBC-MAC [RFC3610] (CCM)
   authenticated encryption block cipher mode such as CCM* are common in

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   LowPower ship-set implementations, and 6LoWPAN ND security mechanism
   should be capable to reuse them when applicable.

   Finally, the code footprint in the device being also an issue, the
   capability to reuse not only hardware-assist mechanisms but also
   software across layers has to be considered.  For instance, if code
   has to be present for upper-layer operations, e.g AES-CCM Cipher
   Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6655], then the
   capability to reuse that code should be considered.

7.  Communication Paradigms and Interaction Models

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology] defines the terms of Communication
   Paradigms and Interaction Models, which can be placed in parallel to
   the Information Models and Data Models that are defined in [RFC3444].

   A Communication Paradigms would be an abstract view of a protocol
   exchange, and would come with an Information Model for the
   information that is being exchanged.  In contrast, an Interaction
   Models would be more refined and could point on standard operation
   such as a Representational state transfer (REST) "GET" operation and
   would match a Data Model for the data that is provided over the
   protocol exchange.

   section 2.1.3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-applicability] and
   next sections discuss application-layer paradigms, such as Source-
   sink (SS) that is a Multipeer to Multipeer (MP2MP) model primarily
   used for alarms and alerts, Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) that
   is typically used for sensor data, as well as Peer-to-peer (P2P) and
   Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communications.  Additional considerations
   on Duocast and its N-cast generalization are also provided.  Those
   paradigms are frequently used in industrial automation, which is a
   major use case for IEEE802.15.4e TSCH wireless networks with
   [ISA100.11a] and [WirelessHART], that provides a wireless access to
   [HART] applications and devices.

   This specification focuses on Communication Paradigms and Interaction
   Models for packet forwarding and TSCH resources (cells) management.
   Management mechanisms for the TSCH schedule at Link-layer (one-hop),
   Network-layer (multithop along a track), and Application-layer
   (remote control) are discussed in Section 9.  Link-layer frame
   forwarding interactions are discussed in Section 10, and Network-
   layer Packet routing is addressed in Section 11.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

8.  TSCH and 6top

8.1.  6top

   6top is a logical link control sitting between the IP layer and the
   TSCH MAC layer, which provides the link abstraction that is required
   for IP operations.  The 6top operations are specified in
   [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer].  In particular, 6top provides a
   management interface that enables an external management entity to
   schedule cells and slotFrames, and allows the addition of
   complementary functionality, for instance to support a dynamic
   schedule management based on observed resource usage as discussed in
   Section 9.2.

   The 6top data model and management interfaces are further discussed
   in Section 9.3.

   If the scheduling entity explicitly specifies the slotOffset/
   channelOffset of the cells to be added/deleted, those cells are
   marked as "hard". 6top cannot move hard cells in the TSCH schedule.
   Hard cells are for example used by a central PCE.

   6top contains a monitoring process which monitors the performance of
   cells, and can move a cell in the TSCH schedule when it performs bad.
   This is only applicable to cells which are marked as "soft".  To
   reserve a soft cell, the higher layer does not indicate the exact
   slotOffset/channelOffset of the cell to add, but rather the resulting
   bandwidth and QoS requirements.  When the monitoring process triggers
   a cell reallocation, the two neighbor devices communicating over this
   cell negotiate its new position in the TSCH schedule.

8.2.  6top and RPL Objective Function operations

   An implementation of a RPL [RFC6550] Objective Function (OF), such as
   the RPL Objective Function Zero (OF0) [RFC6552] that is used in the
   Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal] to support RPL
   over a static schedule, may leverage, for its internal computation,
   the information maintained by 6top.

   In particular, 6top creates and maintains an abstract neighbor table.
   A neighbor table entry contains a set of statistics with respect to
   that specific neighbor including the time when the last packet has
   been received from that neighbor, a set of cell quality metrics (e.g.
   RSSI or LQI), the number of packets sent to the neighbor or the
   number of packets received from it.  This information can be obtained
   through 6top management APIs as detailed in the 6top sublayer
   specification [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer] and used for instance

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   to compute a Rank Increment that will determine the selection of the
   preferred parent.

   6top provides statistics about the underlying layer so the OF can be
   tuned to the nature of the TSCH MAC layer. 6top also enables the RPL
   OF to influence the MAC behaviour, for instance by configuring the
   periodicity of IEEE802.15.4e Extended Beacons (EB's).  By augmenting
   the EB periodicity, it is possible to change the network dynamics so
   as to improve the support of devices that may change their point of
   attachment in the 6TiSCH network.

   Some RPL control messages, such as the DODAG Information Object (DIO)
   are ICMPv6 messages that are broadcast to all neighbor nodes.  With
   6TiSCH, the broadcast channel requirement is addressed by 6top by
   configuring TSCH to provide a broadcast channel, as opposed to, for
   instance, piggybacking the DIO messages in Enhance Beacons.

   In the TSCH schedule, each cell has the IEEE802.15.4e LinkType
   attribute.  Setting the LinkType to ADVERTISING indicates that the
   cell MAY be used to send an Enhanced Beacon.  When a node forms its
   Enhanced Beacon, the cell, with LinkType=ADVERTISING, SHOULD be
   included in the FrameAndLinkIE, and its LinkOption field SHOULD be
   set to the combination of "Receive" and "Timekeeping".  The receiver
   of the Enhanced Beacon MAY be listening at the cell to get the
   Enhanced Beacon ([IEEE802154e]).  6top takes this way to establish
   broadcast channel, which not only allows TSCH to broadcast Enhanced
   Beacons, but also allows protocol exchanges by an upper layer such as

   To broadcast ICMPv6 control messages used by RPL such as DIO or DAO,
   6top uses the payload of a Data frames.  The message is inserted into
   the queue associated with the cells which LinkType is set to
   ADVERTISING.  Then, taking advantage of the broadcast cell feature
   established with FrameAndLinkIE (as described above), the RPL control
   message can be received by neighbors, which enables the maintenance
   of RPL DODAGs.

   A LinkOption combining "Receive" and "Timekeeping" bits indicates to
   the receivers of the Enhanced Beacon that the cell MUST be used as a
   broadcast cell.  The frequency of sending Enhanced Beacons or other
   broadcast messages by the upper layer is determined by the timers
   associated with the messages.  For example, the transmission of
   Enhance Beacons is triggered by a timer in 6top; transmission of a
   DIO message is triggered by the trickle timer of RPL.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

8.3.  Network Synchronization

   Nodes in a TSCH network must be time synchronized.  A node keeps
   synchronized to its time source neighbor through a combination of
   frame-based and acknowledgment-based synchronization.  In order to
   maximize battery life and network throughput, it is advisable that
   RPL ICMP discovery and maintenance traffic (governed by the trickle
   timer) be somehow coordinated with the transmission of time
   synchronization packets (especially with enhanced beacons).  This
   could be achieved through an interaction of the 6top sublayer and the
   RPL objective Function, or could be controlled by a management

   Time distribution requires a loop-less structure.  Nodes taken in a
   synchronization loop will rapidly desynchronize from the network and
   become isolated.  It is expected that a RPL DAG with a dedicated
   global Instance is deployed for the purpose of time synchronization.
   That Instance is referred to as the Time Synchronization Global
   Instance (TSGI).  The TSGI can be operated in either of the 3 modes
   that are detailed in section 3.1.3 of RPL [RFC6550], "Instances,
   DODAGs, and DODAG Versions".  Multiple uncoordinated DODAGs with
   independent roots may be used if all the roots share a common time
   source such as the Global Positioning System (GPS).  In the absence
   of a common time source, the TSGI should form a single DODAG with a
   virtual root.  A backbone network is then used to synchronize and
   coordinate RPL operations between the backbone routers that act as
   sinks for the LLN.

   A node that has not joined the TSGI advertises a MAC level Join
   Priority of 0xFF to notify its neighbors that is not capable of
   serving as time parent.  A node that has joined the TSGI advertises a
   MAC level Join Priority set to its DAGRank() in that Instance, where
   DAGRank() is the operation specified in section 3.5.1 of [RFC6550],
   "Rank Comparison".

   A root is configured or obtains by some external means the knowledge
   of the RPLInstanceID for the TSGI.  The root advertises its DagRank
   in the TSGI, that MUST be less than 0xFF, as its Join Priority (JP)
   in its IEEE802.15.4e Extended Beacons (EB).  We'll note that the JP
   is now specified between 0 and 0x3F leaving 2 bits in the octet
   unused in the IEEE802.15.4e specification.  After consultation with
   IEEE authors, it was asserted that 6TiSCH can make a full use of the
   octet to carry an integer value up to 0xFF.

   A node that reads a Join Priority of less than 0xFF should join the
   neighbor with the lesser Join Priority and use it as time parent.  If
   the node is configured to serve as time parent, then the node should

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   join the TSGI, obtain a Rank in that Instance and start advertising
   its own DagRank in the TSGI as its Join Priority in its EBs.

8.4.  SlotFrames and Priorities

   6TiSCH enables in essence the capability to use IPv6 over a MAC layer
   that enables to schedule some of the transmissions.  In order to
   ensure that the medium is free of contending packets when time
   arrives for a scheduled transmission, a window of time is defined
   around the scheduled transmission time where the medium must be free
   of contending energy.

   One simple way to obtain such a window is to format time and
   frequencies in cells of transmission of equal duration.  This is the
   method that is adopted in IEEE802.15.4e TSCH as well as the Long Term
   Evolution (LTE) of cellular networks.

   In order to describe that formatting of time and frequencies, the
   6TiSCH architecture defines a global concept that is called a Channel
   Distribution and Usage (CDU) matrix; a CDU matrix is a matrix of
   cells with an height equal to the number of available channels
   (indexed by ChannelOffsets) and a width (in timeSlots) that is the
   period of the network scheduling operation (indexed by slotOffsets)
   for that CDU matrix.  The size of a cell is a timeSlot duration, and
   values of 10 to 15 milliseconds are typical in 802.15.4e TSCH to
   accommodate for the transmission of a frame and an ack, including the
   security validation on the receive side which may take up to a few
   milliseconds on some device architecture.

   A CDU matrix iterates over and over with a pseudo-random rotation
   from an epoch time.  In a given network, there might be multiple CDU
   matrices that operate with different width, so they have different
   durations and represent different periodic operations.  It is
   recommended that all CDU matrices in a 6TiSCH domain operate with the
   same cell duration and are aligned, so as to reduce the chances of
   interferences from slotted-aloha operations.  The knowledge of the
   CDU matrices is shared between all the nodes and used in particular
   to define slotFrames.

   A slotFrame is a MAC-level abstraction that is common to all nodes
   and contains a series of timeSlots of equal length and precedence.
   It is characterized by a slotFrame_ID, and a slotFrame_size.  A
   slotFrame aligns to a CDU matrix for its parameters, such as number
   and duration of timeSlots.

   Multiple slotFrames can coexist in a node schedule, i.e., a node can
   have multiple activities scheduled in different slotFrames, based on
   the precedence of the 6TiSCH topologies.  The slotFrames may be

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   aligned to different CDU matrices and thus have different width.
   There is typically one slotFrame for scheduled traffic that has the
   highest precedence and one or more slotFrame(s) for RPL traffic.  The
   timeSlots in the slotFrame are indexed by the SlotOffset; the first
   cell is at SlotOffset 0.

   When a packet is received from a higher layer for transmission, 6top
   inserts that packet in the outgoing queue which matches the packet
   best (Differentiated Services [RFC2474] can therefore be used).  At
   each scheduled transmit slot, 6top looks for the frame in all the
   outgoing queues that best matches the cells.  If a frame is found, it
   is given to the TSCH MAC for transmission.

8.5.  Distributing the reservation of cells

   6TiSCH expects a high degree of scalability together with a
   distributed routing functionality based on RPL.  To achieve this
   goal, the spectrum must be allocated in a way that allows for spatial
   reuse between zones that will not interfere with one another.  In a
   large and spatially distributed network, a 6TiSCH node is often in a
   good position to determine usage of spectrum in its vicinity.

   Use cases for distributed routing are often associated with a
   statistical distribution of best-effort traffic with variable needs
   for bandwidth on each individual link.  With 6TiSCH, the link
   abstraction is implemented as a bundle of cells; the size of a bundle
   is optimal when both the energy wasted idle listening and the packet
   drops due to congestion loss are minimized.  This can be maintained
   if the number of cells in a bundle is adapted dynamically, and with
   enough reactivity, to match the variations of best-effort traffic.
   In turn, the agility to fulfill the needs for additional cells
   improves when the number of interactions with other devices and the
   protocol latencies are minimized.

   6TiSCH limits that interaction to RPL parents that will only
   negotiate with other RPL parents, and performs that negotiation by
   groups of cells as opposed to individual cells.  The 6TiSCH
   architecture allows RPL parents to adjust dynamically, and
   independently from the PCE, the amount of bandwidth that is used to
   communicate between themselves and their children, in both
   directions; to that effect, an allocation mechanism enables a RPL
   parent to obtain the exclusive use of a portion of a CDU matrix
   within its interference domain.  Note that a PCE is expected to have
   precedence in the allocation, so that a RPL parent would only be able
   to obtain portions that are not in-use by the PCE.

   The 6TiSCH architecture introduces the concept of chunks
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]) to operate such spectrum distribution

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   for a whole group of cells at a time.  The CDU matrix is formatted
   into a set of chunks, each of them identified uniquely by a chunk-ID.
   The knowledge of this formatting is shared between all the nodes in a
   6TiSCH network. 6TiSCH also defines the process of chunk ownership
   appropriation whereby a RPL parent discovers a chunk that is not used
   in its interference domain (e.g lack of energy detected in reference
   cells in that chunk); then claims the chunk, and then defends it in
   case another RPL parent would attempt to appropriate it while it is
   in use.  The chunk is the basic unit of ownership that is used in
   that process.

                +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+     +-----+
   chan.Off. 0  |chnkA|chnkP|chnk7|chnkO|chnk2|chnkK|chnk1| ... |chnkZ|
                +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+     +-----+
   chan.Off. 1  |chnkB|chnkQ|chnkA|chnkP|chnk3|chnkL|chnk2| ... |chnk1|
                +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+     +-----+
                +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+     +-----+
   chan.Off. 15 |chnkO|chnk6|chnkN|chnk1|chnkJ|chnkZ|chnkI| ... |chnkG|
                +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+     +-----+
                   0     1     2     3     4     5     6          M

                Figure 5: CDU matrix Partitioning in Chunks

   As a result of the process of chunk ownership appropriation, the RPL
   parent has exclusive authority to decide which cell in the
   appropriated chunk can be used by which node in its interference
   domain.  In other words, it is implicitly delegated the right to
   manage the portion of the CDU matrix that is represented by the
   chunk.  The RPL parent may thus orchestrate which transmissions occur
   in any of the cells in the chunk, by allocating cells from the chunk
   to any form of communication (unicast, multicast) in any direction
   between itself and its children.  Initially, those cells are added to
   the heap of free cells, then dynamically placed into existing
   bundles, in new bundles, or allocated opportunistically for one

   The appropriation of a chunk can also be requested explicitly by the
   PCE to any node.  In that case, the node still may need to perform
   the appropriation process to validate that no other node has claimed
   that chunk already.  After a successful appropriation, the PCE owns
   the cells in that chunk, and may use them as hard cells to set up

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

9.  Schedule Management Mechanisms

   6TiSCH uses 4 paradigms to manage the TSCH schedule of the LLN nodes:
   Static Scheduling, neighbor-to-neighbor Scheduling, remote monitoring
   and scheduling management, and Hop-by-hop scheduling.  Multiple
   mechanisms are defined that implement the associated Interaction
   Models, and can be combined and used in the same LLN.  Which
   mechanism(s) to use depends on application requirements.

9.1.  Static Scheduling

   In the simplest instantiation of a 6TiSCH network, a common fixed
   schedule may be shared by all nodes in the network.  Cells are
   shared, and nodes contend for slot access in a slotted aloha manner.

   A static TSCH schedule can be used to bootstrap a network, as an
   initial phase during implementation, or as a fall-back mechanism in
   case of network malfunction.  This schedule can be preconfigured or
   learnt by a node when joining the network.  Regardless, the schedule
   remains unchanged after the node has joined a network.  The Routing
   Protocol for LLNs (RPL) is used on the resulting network.  This
   "minimal" scheduling mechanism that implements this paradigm is
   detailed in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal].

9.2.  Neighbor-to-neighbor Scheduling

   In the simplest instantiation of a 6TiSCH network described in
   Section 9.1, nodes may expect a packet at any cell in the schedule
   and will waste energy idle listening.  In a more complex
   instantiation of a 6TiSCH network, a matching portion of the schedule
   is established between peers to reflect the observed amount of
   transmissions between those nodes.  The aggregation of the cells
   between a node and a peer forms a bundle that the 6top layer uses to
   implement the abstraction of a link for IP.  The bandwidth on that
   link is proportional to the number of cells in the bundle.

   If the size of a bundle is configured to fit an average amount of
   bandwidth, peak emissions will be destroyed.  If the size is
   configured to allow for peak emissions, energy is be wasted idle

   In the most efficient instantiation of a 6TiSCH network, the size of
   the bundles that implement the links may be changed dynamically in
   order to adapt to the need of end-to-end flows routed by RPL.  An
   optional On-The-Fly (OTF) component may be used to monitor bandwidth
   usage and perform requests for dynamic allocation by the 6top
   sublayer.  The OTF component is not part of the 6top sublayer.  It

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   may be collocated on the same device or may be partially or fully
   offloaded to an external system.

   The 6top sublayer [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer] defines a protocol
   for neighbor nodes to reserve soft cells to one another.  Because
   this reservation is done without global knowledge of the schedule of
   nodes in the LLN, scheduling collisions are possible. 6top defines a
   monitoring process which continuously tracks the packet delivery
   ratio of soft cells.  It uses these statistics to trigger the
   reallocation of a soft cell in the schedule, using a negotiation
   protocol between the neighbors nodes communicating over that cell.

   Monitoring and relocation is done in the 6top layer.  For the upper
   layer, the connection between two neighbor nodes appears as an number
   of cells.  Depending on traffic requirements, the upper layer can
   request 6top to add or delete a number of cells scheduled to a
   particular neighbor, without being responsible for choosing the exact
   slotOffset/channelOffset of those cells.

9.3.  remote Monitoring and Schedule Management

   The 6top interface document [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface]
   specifies the generic data model that can be used to monitor and
   manage resources of the 6top sublayer.  Abstract methods are
   suggested for use by a management entity in the device.  The data
   model also enables remote control operations on the 6top sublayer.

   The capability to interact with the node 6top sublayer from multiple
   hops away can be leveraged for monitoring, scheduling, or a
   combination of thereof.  The architecture supports variations on the
   deployment model, and focuses on the flows rather than whether there
   is a proxy or a translation operation en-route.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap] defines an mapping of the 6top set of
   commands, which is described in [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-interface], to
   CoAP resources.  This allows an entity to interact with the 6top
   layer of a node that is multiple hops away in a RESTful fashion.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-coap] defines a basic set CoAP resources and
   associated RESTful access methods (GET/PUT/POST/DELETE).  The payload
   (body) of the CoAP messages is encoded using the CBOR format.  The
   draft also defines the concept of "profiles" to allow for future or
   specific extensions, as well as a mechanism for a CoAP client to
   discover the profiles installed on a node.

   The entity issuing the CoAP requests can be a central scheduling
   entity (e.g. a PCE), a node multiple hops away with the authority to
   modify the TSCH schedule (e.g. the head of a local cluster), or a

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   external device monitoring the overall state of the network (e.g.

   At the time of this writing, a Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
   [I-D.finn-detnet-problem-statement] effort has started at the IETF to
   provide homogeneous flows and services across layers.  This
   architecture will be refined to comply with DetNet when the work is

9.4.  Hop-by-hop Scheduling

   A node can reserve a track to a destination node multiple hops away
   by installing soft cells at each intermediate node.  This forms a
   track of soft cells.  It is the responsibility of the 6top sublayer
   of each node on the track to monitor these soft cells and trigger
   relocation when needed.

   This hop-by-hop reservation mechanism is expected to be similar in
   essence to [RFC3209] and/or [RFC4080]/[RFC5974].  The protocol for a
   node to trigger hop-by-hop scheduling is not yet defined.

10.  Forwarding Models

   By forwarding, this specification means the per-packet operation that
   allows to deliver a packet to a next hop or an upper layer in this
   node.  Forwarding is based on pre-existing state that was installed
   as a result of a routing computation Section 11.  6TiSCH supports
   three different forwarding model, G-MPLS Track Forwarding (TF),
   6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding (FF) and IPv6 Forwarding (6F).

10.1.  Track Forwarding

   A Track is a unidirectional path between a source and a destination.
   In a Track cell, the normal operation of IEEE802.15.4e Automatic
   Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) usually happens, though the acknowledgment may
   be omitted in some cases, for instance if there is no scheduled cell
   for a retry.

   Track Forwarding is the simplest and fastest.  A bundle of cells set
   to receive (RX-cells) is uniquely paired to a bundle of cells that
   are set to transmit (TX-cells), representing a layer-2 forwarding
   state that can be used regardless of the network layer protocol.
   This model can effectively be seen as a Generalized Multi-protocol
   Label Switching (G-MPLS) operation in that the information used to
   switch a frame is not an explicit label, but rather related to other
   properties of the way the packet was received, a particular cell in
   the case of 6TiSCH.  As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC (and
   Layer-2 security) accepts a frame, that frame can be switched

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   regardless of the protocol, whether this is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN
   fragment, or a frame from an alternate protocol such as WirelessHART
   or ISA100.11a.

   A data frame that is forwarded along a Track normally has a
   destination MAC address that is set to broadcast - or a multicast
   address depending on MAC support.  This way, the MAC layer in the
   intermediate nodes accepts the incoming frame and 6top switches it
   without incurring a change in the MAC header.  In the case of
   IEEE802.15.4e, this means effectively broadcast, so that along the
   Track the short address for the destination of the frame is set to

   A Track is thus formed end-to-end as a succession of paired bundles,
   a receive bundle from the previous hop and a transmit bundle to the
   next hop along the Track, and a cell in such a bundle belongs to at
   most one Track.  For a given iteration of the device schedule, the
   effective channel of the cell is obtained by adding a pseudo-random
   number to the channelOffset of the cell, which results in a rotation
   of the frequency that used for transmission.  The bundles may be
   computed so as to accommodate both variable rates and
   retransmissions, so they might not be fully used at a given iteration
   of the schedule.  The 6TiSCH architecture provides additional means
   to avoid waste of cells as well as overflows in the transmit bundle,
   as follows:

   In one hand, a TX-cell that is not needed for the current iteration
   may be reused opportunistically on a per-hop basis for routed
   packets.  When all of the frame that were received for a given Track
   are effectively transmitted, any available TX-cell for that Track can
   be reused for upper layer traffic for which the next-hop router
   matches the next hop along the Track.  In that case, the cell that is
   being used is effectively a TX-cell from the Track, but the short
   address for the destination is that of the next-hop router.  It
   results that a frame that is received in a RX-cell of a Track with a
   destination MAC address set to this node as opposed to broadcast must
   be extracted from the Track and delivered to the upper layer (a frame
   with an unrecognized MAC address is dropped at the lower MAC layer
   and thus is not received at the 6top sublayer).

   On the other hand, it might happen that there are not enough TX-cells
   in the transmit bundle to accommodate the Track traffic, for instance
   if more retransmissions are needed than provisioned.  In that case,
   the frame can be placed for transmission in the bundle that is used
   for layer-3 traffic towards the next hop along the track as long as
   it can be routed by the upper layer, that is, typically, if the frame
   transports an IPv6 packet.  The MAC address should be set to the
   next-hop MAC address to avoid confusion.  It results that a frame

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   that is received over a layer-3 bundle may be in fact associated to a
   Track.  In a classical IP link such as an Ethernet, off-track traffic
   is typically in excess over reservation to be routed along the non-
   reserved path based on its QoS setting.  But with 6TiSCH, since the
   use of the layer-3 bundle may be due to transmission failures, it
   makes sense for the receiver to recognize a frame that should be re-
   tracked, and to place it back on the appropriate bundle if possible.
   A frame should be re-tracked if the Per-Hop-Behavior group indicated
   in the Differentiated Services Field in the IPv6 header is set to
   Deterministic Forwarding, as discussed in Section 11.1.  A frame is
   re-tracked by scheduling it for transmission over the transmit bundle
   associated to the Track, with the destination MAC address set to

   There are 2 modes for a Track, transport mode and tunnel mode.

10.1.1.  Transport Mode

   In transport mode, the Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is associated with
   flow-dependant meta-data that refers uniquely to the Track, so the
   6top sublayer can place the frame in the appropriate cell without
   ambiguity.  In the case of IPv6 traffic, this flow identification is
   transported in the Flow Label of the IPv6 header.  Associated with
   the source IPv6 address, the Flow Label forms a globally unique
   identifier for that particular Track that is validated at egress
   before restoring the destination MAC address (DMAC) and punting to
   the upper layer.

                          |                                    ^
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |     IPv6     |    |                                    |
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |  6LoWPAN HC  |    |                                    |
      +--------------+  ingress                              egress
      |     6top     |   sets     +----+          +----+     restores
      +--------------+  dmac to   |    |          |    |     dmac to
      |   TSCH MAC   |   brdcst   |    |          |    |      self
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   LLN PHY    |    +-------+    +--...-----+    +-------+

                     Track Forwarding, Transport Mode

10.1.2.  Tunnel Mode

   In tunnel mode, the frames originate from an arbitrary protocol over
   a compatible MAC that may or may not be synchronized with the 6TiSCH
   network.  An example of this would be a router with a dual radio that

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   is capable of receiving and sending WirelessHART or ISA100.11a frames
   with the second radio, by presenting itself as an access Point or a
   Backbone Router, respectively.

   In that mode, some entity (e.g.  PCE) can coordinate with a
   WirelessHART Network Manager or an ISA100.11a System Manager to
   specify the flows that are to be transported transparently over the

      |     IPv6     |
      |  6LoWPAN HC  |
      +--------------+             set            restore
      |     6top     |            +dmac+          +dmac+
      +--------------+          to|brdcst       to|nexthop
      |   TSCH MAC   |            |    |          |    |
      +--------------+            |    |          |    |
      |   LLN PHY    |    +-------+    +--...-----+    +-------+
      +--------------+    |   ingress                 egress   |
                          |                                    |
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |   LLN PHY    |    |                                    |
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |   TSCH MAC   |    |                                    |
      +--------------+    | dmac =                             | dmac =
      |ISA100/WiHART |    | nexthop                            v nexthop

                  Figure 6: Track Forwarding, Tunnel Mode

   In that case, the flow information that identifies the Track at the
   ingress 6TiSCH router is derived from the RX-cell.  The dmac is set
   to this node but the flow information indicates that the frame must
   be tunneled over a particular Track so the frame is not passed to the
   upper layer.  Instead, the dmac is forced to broadcast and the frame
   is passed to the 6top sublayer for switching.

   At the egress 6TiSCH router, the reverse operation occurs.  Based on
   metadata associated to the Track, the frame is passed to the
   appropriate link layer with the destination MAC restored.

10.1.3.  Tunnel Metadata

   Metadata coming with the Track configuration is expected to provide
   the destination MAC address of the egress endpoint as well as the
   tunnel mode and specific data depending on the mode, for instance a
   service access point for frame delivery at egress.  If the tunnel

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   egress point does not have a MAC address that matches the
   configuration, the Track installation fails.

   In transport mode, if the final layer-3 destination is the tunnel
   termination, then it is possible that the IPv6 address of the
   destination is compressed at the 6LoWPAN sublayer based on the MAC
   address.  It is thus mandatory at the ingress point to validate that
   the MAC address that was used at the 6LoWPAN sublayer for compression
   matches that of the tunnel egress point.  For that reason, the node
   that injects a packet on a Track checks that the destination is
   effectively that of the tunnel egress point before it overwrites it
   to broadcast.  The 6top sublayer at the tunnel egress point reverts
   that operation to the MAC address obtained from the tunnel metadata.

10.2.  Fragment Forwarding

   Considering that 6LoWPAN packets can be as large as 1280 bytes (the
   IPv6 MTU), and that the non-storing mode of RPL implies Source
   Routing that requires space for routing headers, and that a
   IEEE802.15.4 frame with security may carry in the order of 80 bytes
   of effective payload, an IPv6 packet might be fragmented into more
   than 16 fragments at the 6LoWPAN sublayer.

   This level of fragmentation is much higher than that traditionally
   experienced over the Internet with IPv4 fragments, where
   fragmentation is already known as harmful.

   In the case to a multihop route within a 6TiSCH network, Hop-by-Hop
   recomposition occurs at each hop in order to reform the packet and
   route it.  This creates additional latency and forces intermediate
   nodes to store a portion of a packet for an undetermined time, thus
   impacting critical resources such as memory and battery.

   [I-D.thubert-roll-forwarding-frags] describes a mechanism whereby the
   datagram tag in the 6LoWPAN Fragment is used as a label for switching
   at the 6LoWPAN sublayer.  The draft allows for a degree of flow
   control based on an Explicit Congestion Notification, as well as end-
   to-end individual fragment recovery.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

                          |                                    ^
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |     IPv6     |    |       +----+          +----+       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |  6LoWPAN HC  |    |       learn           learn        |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |     6top     |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   TSCH MAC   |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   LLN PHY    |    +-------+    +--...-----+    +-------+

                    Figure 7: Forwarding First Fragment

   In that model, the first fragment is routed based on the IPv6 header
   that is present in that fragment.  The 6LoWPAN sublayer learns the
   next hop selection, generates a new datagram tag for transmission to
   the next hop, and stores that information indexed by the incoming MAC
   address and datagram tag.  The next fragments are then switched based
   on that stored state.

                          |                                    ^
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |     IPv6     |    |                                    |
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |  6LoWPAN HC  |    |       replay          replay       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |     6top     |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   TSCH MAC   |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   LLN PHY    |    +-------+    +--...-----+    +-------+

                    Figure 8: Forwarding Next Fragment

   A bitmap and an ECN echo in the end-to-end acknowledgment enable the
   source to resend the missing fragments selectively.  The first
   fragment may be resent to carve a new path in case of a path failure.
   The ECN echo set indicates that the number of outstanding fragments
   should be reduced.

10.3.  IPv6 Forwarding

   As the packets are routed at Layer-3, traditional QoS and RED
   operations are expected to prioritize flows; the application of

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   Differentiated Services is further discussed in

                          |                                    ^
      +--------------+    |                                    |
      |     IPv6     |    |       +-QoS+          +-QoS+       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |  6LoWPAN HC  |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |     6top     |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   TSCH MAC   |    |       |    |          |    |       |
      +--------------+    |       |    |          |    |       |
      |   LLN PHY    |    +-------+    +--...-----+    +-------+

                          Figure 9: IP Forwarding

11.  Centralized vs. Distributed Routing

   6TiSCH supports a mixed model of centralized routes and distributed
   routes.  Centralized routes can for example be computed by a entity
   such as a PCE.  Distributed routes are computed by RPL.

   Both methods may inject routes in the Routing Tables of the 6TiSCH
   routers.  In either case, each route is associated with a 6TiSCH
   topology that can be a RPL Instance topology or a track.  The 6TiSCH
   topology is indexed by a Instance ID, in a format that reuses the
   RPLInstanceID as defined in RPL [RFC6550].

   Both RPL and PCE rely on shared sources such as policies to define
   Global and Local RPLInstanceIDs that can be used by either method.
   It is possible for centralized and distributed routing to share a
   same topology.  Generally they will operate in different slotFrames,
   and centralized routes will be used for scheduled traffic and will
   have precedence over distributed routes in case of conflict between
   the slotFrames.

11.1.  Packet Marking and Handling

   All packets inside a 6TiSCH domain MUST carry the Instance ID that
   identifies the 6TiSCH topology that is to be used for routing and
   forwarding that packet.  The location of that information MUST be the
   same for all packets forwarded inside the domain.

   For packets that are routed by a PCE along a Track, the tuple formed
   by the IPv6 source address and a local RPLInstanceID in the packet
   identify uniquely the Track and associated transmit bundle.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   Additionally, an IP packet that is sent along a Track uses the
   Differentiated Services Per-Hop-Behavior Group called Deterministic
   Forwarding, as described in

   For packets that are routed by RPL, that information is the
   RPLInstanceID which is carried in the RPL Packet Information, as
   discussed in section 11.2 of [RFC6550], "Loop Avoidance and

   The RPL Packet Information (RPI) is carried in IPv6 packets as a RPL
   option in the IPv6 Hop-By-Hop Header [RFC6553].

   6Lo is currently considering a Next Header Compression (NHC) for the
   RPI (RPI-NHC).  The RPI-NHC is specified in
   [I-D.thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc], and is the compressed equivalent to the
   whole HbH header with the RPL option.

   An alternative form of compression that integrates the compression on
   IP-in-IP encapsulation and the Routing Header type 3 [RFC6554] with
   that of the RPI in a new 6LoWPAN dispatch/header type is concurrently
   being evaluated as [I-D.thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch].

   Either way, the method and format used for encoding the RPLInstanceID
   is generalized to all 6TiSCH topological Instances, which include
   both RPL Instances and Tracks.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This specification does not require IANA action.

13.  Security Considerations

   This architecture operates on IEEE802.15.4 and expects link-layer
   security to be enabled at all times between connected devices, except
   for the very first step of the device join process, where a joining
   device may need some initial, unsecured exchanges so as to obtain its
   initial key material.  Work has already started at the 6TiSCH
   Security Design Team and an overview of the current state of that
   work is presented in Section 13.1.

   Future work on 6TiSCH security and will examine in deeper detail how
   to secure transactions end-to-end, and to maintain the security
   posture of a device over its lifetime.  The result of that work will
   be described in a subsequent volume of this architecture.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

13.1.  Join Process Highlights

   The architecture specifies three logical elements to describe the
   join process:

   A Joining Node (JN):  Node that wishes to become part of the network;

   A Join Coordination Entity (JCE)  : A Join Coordination Entity (JCE)
         that arbitrates network access and hands out network parameters
         (such as keying material);

   A Join Assistant (JA),  a one-hop (radio) neighbor of the joining
         node that acts as proxy network node and may provide
         connectivity with the JCE.

   The join protocol consists of three phases:

   Device Authentication:  The JN and the JA mutually authenticate each
         other and establish a shared key, so as to ensure on-going
         authenticated communications.  This may involve a server as a
         third party.

   Authorization:  The JA decides on whether/how to authorize a JN (if
         denied, this may result in loss of bandwidth).  Conversely, the
         JN decides on whether/how to authorize the network (if denied,
         it will not join the network).  Authorization decisions may
         involve other nodes in the network.

   Configuration/Parameterization:  The JA distributes configuration
         information to the JN, such as scheduling information, IP
         address assignment information, and network policies.  This may
         originate from other network devices, for which the JA may act
         as proxy.  This step may also include distribution of
         information from the JN to the JA and other nodes in the
         network and, more generally, synchronization of information
         between these entities.

   The device joining process is depicted in Figure 10, where it is
   assumed that devices have access to certificates and where entities
   have access to the root CA keys of their communicating parties
   (initial set-up requirement).  Under these assumptions, the
   authentication step of the device joining process does not require
   online involvement of a third party.  Mutual authentication is
   performed between the JN and the JA using their certificates, which
   also results in a shared key between these two entities.

   The JA assists the JN in mutual authentication with a remote server
   node (primarily via provision of a communication path with the

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   server), which also results in a shared (end-to-end) key between
   those two entities.  The server node may be a JCE that arbitrages the
   network authorization of the JN (where the JA will deny bandwidth if
   authorization is not successful); it may distribute network-specific
   configuration parameters (including network-wide keys) to the JN.  In
   its turn, the JN may distribute and synchronize information
   (including, e.g., network statistics) to the server node and, if so
   desired, also to the JA.  The actual decision of the JN to become
   part of the network may depend on authorization of the network

   The server functionality is a role which may be implemented with one
   (centralized) or multiple devices (distributed).  In either case,
   mutual authentication is established with each physical server entity
   with which a role is implemented.

   Note that in the above description, the JA does not solely act as a
   relay node, thereby allowing it to first filter traffic to be relayed
   based on cryptographic authentication criteria - this provides first-
   level access control and mitigates certain types of denial-of-service
   attacks on the network at large.

   Depending on more detailed insight in cost/benefit trade-offs, this
   process might be complemented by a more "relaxed" mechanism, where
   the JA acts as a relay node only.  The final architecture will
   provide mechanisms to also cover cases where the initial set-up
   requirements are not met or where some other out-of-sync behavior
   occurs; it will also suggest some optimizations in case JCE-related
   information is already available with the JA (via caching of

   When a device rejoins the network in the same authorization domain,
   the authorization step could be omitted if the server distributes the
   authorization state for the device to the JA when the device
   initially joined the network.  However, this generally still requires
   the exchange of updated configuration information, e.g., related to
   time schedules and bandwidth allocation.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   {joining node}     {neighbor}               {server, etc.}   Example:
   +---------+        +---------+                 +---------+
   | Joining |        |  Join   |              +--|    CA   |certificate
   |  Node   |        |Assistant|              |  +---------+   issuance
   +---------+        +---------+              |  +---------+
      |                    |                   +--|Authoriz.| membership
      |<----Beaconing------|                   |  +---------+ test (JCE)
      |                    |                   |  +---------+
      |<--Authentication-->|                   +--| Routing | IP address
      |                    |<--Authorization-->|  +---------  assignment
      |<-------------------|                   |  +---------+
      |                    |                   +--| Gateway | backbone,
      |------------------->|                   |  +---------+    cloud
      |                    |<--Configuration-->|  +---------+
      |<-------------------|                   +--|Bandwidth|  PCE
                                                  +---------+  schedule
       .                    .                   .
       .                    .                   .

    Figure 10: Network joining, with only authorization by third party

14.  Acknowledgments

14.1.  Contributors

   The editors and authors wish to recognize the contribution of

   Kris Pister  for creating it all and his continuing guidance through
         the elaboration of this design.

   Xavier Vilajosana  who lead the design of the minimal support with
         RPL and contributed deeply to the 6top design.

   Qin Wang  who lead the design of the 6top sublayer and contributed
         related text that was moved and/or adapted in this document.

   Robert Assimiti  for his breakthrough work on RPL over TSCH and
         initial text and guidance.

14.2.  Special Thanks

   Special thanks to Tero Kivinen, Jonathan Simon, Giuseppe Piro, Subir
   Das and Yoshihiro Ohba for their deep contribution to the initial
   security work, and to Diego Dujovne for starting and leading the On-
   the-Fly effort.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   Special thanks also to Pat Kinney for his support in maintaining the
   connection active and the design in line with work happening at

   Also special thanks to Ted Lemon who was the INT Area A-D while this
   specification was developed for his great support and help

14.3.  And Do not Forget

   This specification is the result of multiple interactions, in
   particular during the 6TiSCH (bi)Weekly Interim call, relayed through
   the 6TiSCH mailing list at the IETF.

   The authors wish to thank: Alaeddine Weslati, Chonggang Wang,
   Georgios Exarchakos, Zhuo Chen, Alfredo Grieco, Bert Greevenbosch,
   Cedric Adjih, Deji Chen, Martin Turon, Dominique Barthel, Elvis
   Vogli, Geraldine Texier, Malisa Vucinic, Guillaume Gaillard, Herman
   Storey, Kazushi Muraoka, Ken Bannister, Kuor Hsin Chang, Laurent
   Toutain, Maik Seewald, Maria Rita Palattella, Michael Behringer,
   Nancy Cam Winget, Nicola Accettura, Nicolas Montavont, Oleg Hahm,
   Patrick Wetterwald, Paul Duffy, Peter van der Stock, Rahul Sen,
   Pieter de Mil, Pouria Zand, Rouhollah Nabati, Rafa Marin-Lopez,
   Raghuram Sudhaakar, Sedat Gormus, Shitanshu Shah, Steve Simlo,
   Tengfei Chang, Tina Tsou, Tom Phinney, Xavier Lagrange, Ines Robles
   and Samita Chakrabarti for their participation and various

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

              Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T., and Q. Wang,
              "Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE
              802.15.4e", draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-03 (work in
              progress), January 2015.

              Watteyne, T., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
              IEEE802.15.4e TSCH in an IoT context: Overview, Problem
              Statement and Goals", draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-05 (work in
              progress), January 2015.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC6282]  Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              September 2011.

   [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

   [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

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
              "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
              November 2012.

15.2.  Informative References

              Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., Thubert, P., and M.
              Wasserman, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Optimizations for
              Wired and Wireless Networks", draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-
              6man-efficient-nd-07 (work in progress), February 2015.

              Dujovne, D., Grieco, L., Palattella, M., and N. Accettura,
              "6TiSCH On-the-Fly Scheduling", draft-dujovne-6tisch-on-
              the-fly-04 (work in progress), January 2015.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

              Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
              Statement", draft-finn-detnet-problem-statement-01 (work
              in progress), October 2014.

              Wang, Q., Vilajosana, X., and T. Watteyne, "6TiSCH
              Operation Sublayer (6top) Interface", draft-ietf-6tisch-
              6top-interface-02 (work in progress), October 2014.

              Sudhaakar, R. and P. Zand, "6TiSCH Resource Management and
              Interaction using CoAP", draft-ietf-6tisch-coap-02 (work
              in progress), December 2014.

              Vilajosana, X. and K. Pister, "Minimal 6TiSCH
              Configuration", draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-05 (work in
              progress), January 2015.

              Thaler, D. and C. Huitema, "Multi-link Subnet Support in
              IPv6", draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00 (work in
              progress), July 2002.

              Phinney, T., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL
              applicability in industrial networks", draft-ietf-roll-
              rpl-industrial-applicability-02 (work in progress),
              October 2013.

              Richardson, M., "security architecture for 6top:
              requirements and structure", draft-richardson-6tisch-
              security-architecture-02 (work in progress), April 2014.

              Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Forwarding PHB",
              draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-03 (work in
              progress), March 2015.

              Shah, S. and P. Thubert, "Differentiated Service Class
              Recommendations for LLN Traffic", draft-svshah-tsvwg-lln-
              diffserv-recommendations-04 (work in progress), February

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 37]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

              Thubert, P. and P. Stok, "Requirements for an update to
              6LoWPAN ND", draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-06
              (work in progress), January 2015.

              Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, "A
              Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN", draft-thubert-6lo-
              routing-dispatch-03 (work in progress), January 2015.

              Thubert, P. and C. Bormann, "A compression mechanism for
              the RPL option", draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 (work in
              progress), October 2014.

              Thubert, P., "6LoWPAN Backbone Router", draft-thubert-
              6lowpan-backbone-router-03 (work in progress), February

              Thubert, P. and J. Hui, "LLN Fragment Forwarding and
              Recovery", draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02 (work in
              progress), September 2013.

              Stok, P., Greevenbosch, B., Bierman, A., Schoenwaelder,
              J., and A. Sehgal, "CoAP Management Interface", draft-
              vanderstok-core-comi-06 (work in progress), February 2015.

              Wang, Q., Vilajosana, X., and T. Watteyne, "6TiSCH
              Operation Sublayer (6top)", draft-wang-6tisch-6top-
              sublayer-01 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December

   [RFC2545]  Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
              Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, March

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 38]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   [RFC3444]  Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
              Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444, January

   [RFC3610]  Whiting, D., Housley, R., and N. Ferguson, "Counter with
              CBC-MAC (CCM)", RFC 3610, September 2003.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, January 2005.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
              Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.

   [RFC4080]  Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
              Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework", RFC
              4080, June 2005.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006.

   [RFC4429]  Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
              for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006.

   [RFC4903]  Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903, June

   [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.

   [RFC5191]  Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H., and A.
              Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network
              Access (PANA)", RFC 5191, May 2008.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

   [RFC5889]  Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
              Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.

   [RFC5974]  Manner, J., Karagiannis, G., and A. McDonald, "NSIS
              Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for Quality-of-Service
              Signaling", RFC 5974, October 2010.

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 39]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

   [RFC6620]  Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "FCFS
              SAVI: First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation
              Improvement for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses", RFC
              6620, May 2012.

   [RFC6655]  McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
              Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655, July 2012.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January

15.3.  Other Informative References

   [CCAMP]    IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane",

   [DICE]     IETF, "DTLS In Constrained Environments",

   [HART]     www.hartcomm.org, "Highway Addressable remote Transducer,
              a group of specifications for industrial process and
              control devices administered by the HART Foundation", .

              IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
              Networks Task Group", March 2013,

              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
              802.15.4e, Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
              Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", April

   [ISA100]   ISA/ANSI, "ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation",

              ISA/ANSI, "Wireless Systems for Industrial Automation:
              Process Control and Related Applications - ISA100.11a-2011
              - IEC 62734", 2011, <http://www.isa.org/Community/

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 40]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   [PCE]      IETF, "Path Computation Element",

   [TEAS]     IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling",

              www.hartcomm.org, "Industrial Communication Networks -
              Wireless Communication Network and Communication Profiles
              - WirelessHART - IEC 62591", 2010.

Appendix A.  Personal submissions relevant to the next volumes

   This volume only covers a portion of the total work that is needed to
   cover the full 6TiSCH architecture.  Missing portions include
   Deterministic Networking with Track Forwarding, Dynamic Scheduling,
   and Security.

   [I-D.richardson-6tisch-security-architecture] elaborates on the
   potential use of 802.1AR certificates, and some options for the join
   process are presented in more details.

   [I-D.dujovne-6tisch-on-the-fly] discusses the use of the 6top
   sublayer [I-D.wang-6tisch-6top-sublayer] to adapt dynamically the
   number of cells between a RPL parent and a child to the needs of the
   actual traffic.

Authors' Addresses

   Pascal Thubert (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis  06254

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com

   Thomas Watteyne
   Linear Technology, Dust Networks Product Group
   30695 Huntwood Avenue
   Hayward, CA  94544

   Phone: +1 (510) 400-2978
   Email: twatteyne@linear.com

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 41]

Internet-Draft             6tisch-architecture                March 2015

   Rene Struik
   Struik Security Consultancy

   Email: rstruik.ext@gmail.com

   Michael C. Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   470 Dawson Avenue
   Ottawa, ON  K1Z 5V7

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
   URI:   http://www.sandelman.ca/

Thubert, et al.        Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 42]