Roll                                                           A. Brandt
Internet-Draft                                             Sigma Designs
Intended status: Informational                               E. Baccelli
Expires: August 17, 2014                                           INRIA
                                                               R. Cragie
                                                         P. van der Stok
                                                       February 13, 2014

    Applicability Statement: The use of the RPL protocol set in Home
                    Automation and Building Control


   The purpose of this document is to provide guidance in the selection
   and use of RPL protocols to implement the features required for
   control in building and home environments.

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   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
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Required Reading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Network Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.2.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.3.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub)) communication
               paradigm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.4.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . .   8
       2.2.5.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . .   8
       2.2.6.  N-cast communication paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.7.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm  . . . .   8
     2.3.  Layer-2 applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Using RPL to meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  RPL Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.1.  RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.3.  DAO Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.4.  Path Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.5.  Objective Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.6.  DODAG Repair  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.7.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.8.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.1.9.  P2P communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.1.10. IPv6 adddress configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Layer 2 features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . .  14
       4.3.1.  RPL-P2P parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.2.  Trickle parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.3.  MPL parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Security context considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  MPL routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.3.  Security Considerations for distribution of credentials
           required for RPL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.4.  Security Considerations for P2P uses  . . . . . . . . . .  16

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   7.  Other related protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  RPL shortcomings in home and building deployments  .  21
     A.1.  Risk of undesired long P2P routes . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       A.1.1.  Traffic concentration at the root . . . . . . . . . .  21
       A.1.2.  Excessive battery consumption in source nodes . . . .  22
     A.2.  Risk of delayed route repair  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       A.2.1.  Broken service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix B.  Communication failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   Home automation and building control application spaces share a
   substantial number of properties.

   o  Both (home and building) can be disconnected from the ISP and they
      will (must) continue to provide control to the occupants of the
      home c.q. building.  This has an impact on routing because most
      control communication does (must) not pass via the border routers.

   o  Both are confronted with unreliable links and want instant very
      reliable reactions.  This has impact on routing because of
      timeliness and multipath routing.

   o  The difference between the two mostly appears in the
      commissioning, maintenance and user interface which does not
      affect the routing.

   So the focus of this applicability document is control in buildings
   and home, involving: reliability, timeliness, and local routing.

   The purpose of this document is to give guidance in the use of the
   RPL protocol suite to provide the features required by the
   requirements documents "Home Automation Routing Requirements in Low-
   Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC5826] and "Building Automation Routing
   Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC5867].

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   Additionally, this document uses terminology from [RFC6997],
   [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast], and [RFC6550].

1.2.  Required Reading

   Applicable requirements are described in [RFC5826] and [RFC5867].

1.3.  Out of scope requirements

   The considered network diameter is limited to a max diameter of 10
   hops and a typical diameter of 5 hops, which captures the most common
   cases in home automation and building control networks.

   This document does not consider the applicability of RPL-related
   specifications for urban and industrial applications [RFC5548],
   [RFC5673], which may exhibit significantly larger network diameters.

2.  Deployment Scenario

   The use of communications networks in buildings is essential to
   satisfy the energy saving regulations.  Environmental conditions of
   buildings can be adapted to suit the comfort of the individuals
   present.  Consequently when no one is present, energy consumption can
   be reduced.  Cost is the main driving factor behind utilizing
   wireless networking in buildings.  Especially for retrofit, wireless
   connectivity saves cabling costs.

   A typical home automation network is comprised of less than 100
   nodes.  Large building deployments may span 10,000 nodes but to
   ensure uninterrupted service of light and air conditioning systems in
   individual zones of the building, nodes are typically organized in
   sub-networks.  Each sub-network in a building automation deployment
   typically contains tens to hundreds of nodes.

   The main purpose of the home or building automation network is to
   provide control over light and heating/cooling resources.  User
   intervention may be enabled via wall controllers combined with
   movement, light and temperature sensors to enable automatic
   adjustment of window blinds, reduction of room temperature, etc.  In
   general, the sensors and actuators in a home or building typically
   have fixed physical locations and will remain in the same home- or
   building automation network.

   People expect an immediate and reliable response to their presence or
   actions.  A light not switching on after entry into a room may lead
   to confusion and a profound dissatisfaction with the lighting

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   Monitoring of functional correctness is at least as important.
   Devices typically communicate their status regularly and send alarm
   messages notifying a malfunction of equipment or network.

   In building control, the infrastructure of the building management
   network can be shared with the security/access, the IP telephony, and
   the fire/alarm networks.  This approach has a positive impact on the
   operation and cost of the network.

   In homes the network for audio/video streaming and gaming has
   different requirements, where the most important one is the high need
   in bandwith for entertainment not needed for control.  It is expected
   that the entertainment network in the home will mostly be separate
   from the control network.

2.1.  Network Topologies

   In general, The home automation network or building control network
   consists of wired and wireless sub-networks.  In large buildings
   especially, the wireless sub-networks can be connected to an IP
   backbone network where all infrastructure services are located, such
   as DNS, automation servers, etc.

   The wireless sub-network can be configured according to any of the
   following topologies:

   o  A stand-alone network of 10-100 nodes without border router.  This
      typically occurs in the home with a stand-alone control network,
      in low cost buildings, and during installation of high end control
      systems in buildings.

   o  A connected network with one border router.  This configuration
      will happen in homes where home appliances are controlled from
      outside the home or via the telephone, and in many building
      control scenarios.

   o  A connected network with multiple border routers.  This will
      typically happen in installations of large buildings.

   Many of the nodes are batery-powered and may be sleeping nodes which
   wake-up according to clock signals or external events.

   In a building control network, for large installation with multiple
   border routers, sub-networks often overlap geographically and from a
   wireless coverage perspective.  Due to two purposes of the network,
   (i) direct control and (ii) monitoring, there may exist two types of
   routing topologies in a given sub-network: (i) a tree-shaped
   collection of routes spanning from a central building controller via

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   the border router, on to destination nodes in the sub-network; and/or
   (ii) a flat, un-directed collection of intra-network routes between
   functionally related nodes in the sub-network.

   The majority of nodes in home and building automation networks are
   typically devices with very low memory capacity, such as individual
   wall switches.  Only a few nodes (such as multi-purpose remote
   controls) are more expensive devices, which can afford more memory

2.2.  Traffic Characteristics

   Traffic may enter the network originating from a central controller
   or it may originate from an intra-network node.  The majority of
   traffic is light-weight point-to-point control style; e.g. Put-Ack or
   Get-Response.  There are however exceptions.  Bulk data transfer is
   used for firmware update and logging, where firmware updates enter
   the network and logs leave the network.  Group communication is used
   for service discovery or to control groups of nodes, such as light

   Often, there is a direct physical relation between a controlling
   sensor and the controlled equipment.  For example the temperature
   sensor and thermostat are located in the same room sharing the same
   climate conditions.  Consequently, the bulk of senders and receivers
   are separated by a distance that allows one-hop direct path
   communication.  A graph of the communication will show several fully
   connected subsets of nodes.  However, due to interference, multipath
   fading, reflection and other transmission mechanisms, the one-hop
   direct path may be temporally disconnected.  For reliability
   purposes, it is therefore essential that alternative n-hop
   communication routes exist for quick error recovery.  (See Appendix B
   for motivation.)

   Looking over time periods of a day, the networks are very lightly
   loaded.  However, bursts of traffic can be generated by pushing
   permanently the button of a remote control, the occurrence of a
   defect, and other unforeseen events.  Under those conditions, the
   timeliness must nevertheless be maintained.  Therefore, measures are
   necessary to remove any unnecessary traffic.  Short routes are
   preferred.  Long multi-hop routes via the border router, should be
   avoided whenever possible.

   Group communication is essential for lighting control.  For example,
   once the presence of a person is detected in a given room, lighting
   control applies to that room only and no other lights should be
   dimmed, or switched on/off.  In many cases, this means that a
   multicast message with a 1-hop and 2-hop radius would suffice to

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   control the required lights.  The same argument holds for HVAC and
   other climate control devices.  To reduce network load, it is
   advisable that messages to the lights in a room are not distributed
   any further in the mesh than necessary based on intended receivers.

2.2.1.  General

   Whilst air conditioning and other environmental-control applications
   may accept response delays of tens of seconds or longer, alarm and
   light control applications may be regarded as soft real-time systems.
   A slight delay is acceptable, but the perceived quality of service
   degrades significantly if response times exceed 250 msec.  If the
   light does not turn on at short notice, a user may activate the
   controls again, thus causing a sequence of commands such as
   Light{on,off,on,off,..} or Volume{up,up,up,up,up,...}. In addition
   the repetitive sending of commands creates an unnecessary loading of
   the network, which in turn increases the bad responsiveness of the

2.2.2.  Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm

   This paradigm translates to many sources sending messages to the same
   sink, sometimes reachable via the border router.  As such, source-
   sink (SS) traffic can be present in home and building networks.  The
   traffic is generated by environmental sensors (often present in a
   wireless sub-network) which push periodic readings to a central
   server.  The readings may be used for pure logging, or more often,
   processed to adjust light, heating and ventilation.  Alarm sensors
   also generate SS style traffic.  The central server in a home
   automation network will be connected mostly to a wired sub-network,
   although it is suspected that cloud services will become available.
   The central server in a building automation network may be connected
   to a backbone or be placed outside the building.

   With regards to message latency, most SS transmissions can tolerate
   worst-case delays measured in tens of seconds.  Alarm sensors,
   however, represent an exception.  Special provisions with respect to
   the location of the Alarm server(s) need to be put in place to
   respect the specified delays.

2.2.3.  Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub)) communication paradigm

   This paradigm translates to a number of devices expressing their
   interest for a service provided by a server device.  For example, a
   server device can be a sensor delivering temperature readings on the
   basis of delivery criteria, like changes in acquisition value or age
   of the latest acquisition.  In building automation networks, this
   paradigm may be closely related to the SS paradigm given that

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   servers, which are connected to the backbone or outside the building,
   can subscribe to data collectors that are present at strategic places
   in the building automation network.  The use of PS will probably
   differ significantly from installation to installation.

2.2.4.  Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm

   This paradigm translates to a device transferring data to another
   device often connected to the same sub-network.  Peer-to-peer (P2P)
   traffic is a common traffic type in home automation networks.  Some
   building automation networks also rely on P2P traffic while others
   send all control traffic to a local controller box for advanced scene
   and group control.  The latter controller boxes can be connected to
   service control boxes thus generating more SS or PS traffic.

   P2P traffic is typically generated by remote controls and wall
   controllers which push control messages directly to light or heat
   sources.  P2P traffic has a strong requirement for low latency since
   P2P traffic often carries application messages that are invoked by
   humans.  As mentioned in Section 2.2.1 application messages should be
   delivered within a few hundred milliseconds - even when connections
   fail momentarily.

2.2.5.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm

   This paradigm translates to a device sending a message as many times
   as there are destination devices.  Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) traffic
   is common in home and building automation networks.  Often, a
   thermostat in a living room responds to temperature changes by
   sending temperature acquisitions to several fans and valves

2.2.6.  N-cast communication paradigm

   This paradigm translates to a device sending a message to many
   destinations in one network transfer invocation.  Multicast is well
   suited for lighting where a presence sensor sends a presence message
   to a set of lighting devices.  Multicast increases the probability
   that the message is delivered within the strict time constraints.
   The chosen multicast algorithm (e.g. [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast])
   assures that messages are delivered to ALL destinations.

2.2.7.  RPL applicability per communication paradigm

   In the case of SS over a wireless sub-network to a server reachable
   via a border router, the use of RPL [RFC6550] is recommended.  Given
   the low resources of the devices, source routing will be used for
   messages from outside the wireless sub-network to the destination in

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   the wireless sub-network.  No specific timing constraints are
   associated with the SS type messages so network repair does not
   violate the operational constraints.  When no SS traffic takes place,
   it is recommended to load only RPL-P2P code into the network stack to
   satisfy memory requirements by reducing code.

   All P2P and P2MP traffic, taking place within a wireless sub-network,
   requires P2P-RPL [RFC6997] to assure responsiveness.  Source and
   destination are typically close together to satisfy the living
   conditions of one room.  Consequently, most P2P and P2MP traffic is
   1-hop or 2-hop traffic.  Appendix A explains why RPL-P2P is
   preferable to RPL for this type of communication.  Appendix B
   explains why reliability measures such as multi-path routing are
   necessary even when 1-hop communication dominates.

   Additional advantages of RPL-P2P for home and building automation
   networks are, for example:

   o  Individual wall switches are typically inexpensive devices with
      extremely low memory capacities.  Multi-purpose remote controls
      for use in a home environment typically have more memory but such
      devices are asleep when there is no user activity.  RPL-P2P
      reactive discovery allows a node to wake up and find new routes
      within a few seconds while memory constrained nodes only have to
      keep routes to relevant targets.

   o  The reactive discovery features of RPL-P2P ensure that commands
      are normally delivered within the 250 msec time window and when
      connectivity needs to be restored, it is typically completed
      within seconds.  In most cases an alternative (earlier discovered)
      route will work.  Thus, route rediscovery is not even necessary.

   o  Broadcast storms as happening during road discovery for AODV is
      less disruptive for P2P-RPL.  P2P-RPL has a "STOP" bit which is
      set by the target of a route discovery to notify all other nodes
      that no more DIOs should be forwarded for this temporary DAG.
      Something looking like a broadcast storm may happen when no target
      is responding.  And in this case, the Trickle suppression
      mechanism kicks in; limiting the number of DIO forwards in dense

   Due to the limited memory of the majority of devices, RPL-P2P MUST be
   used with source routing in non-storing mode as explained in
   Section 4.1.2.

   N-cast over the wireless network will be done using multicast with
   MPL [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast].  Configuration constraints that

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   are necessary to meet reliability and timeliness with MPL are
   discussed in Section 4.1.7.

2.3.  Layer-2 applicability

   This document applies to [IEEE802.15.4] and [G.9959] which are
   adapted to IPv6 by the adaption layers [RFC4944] and

   The above mentioned adaptation layers leverage on the compression
   capabilities of [RFC6554] and [RFC6282].  Header compression allows
   small IP packets to fit into a single layer 2 frame even when source
   routing is used.  A network diameter limited to 5 hops helps to
   achieve this.

   Dropped packets are often experienced in the targeted environments.
   ICMP, UDP and even TCP flows may benefit from link layer unicast
   acknowledgments and retransmissions.  Link layer unicast
   acknowledgments MUST be enabled when [IEEE802.15.4] or [G.9959] is
   used with RPL and RPL-P2P.

3.  Using RPL to meet Functional Requirements

   RPL-P2P MUST be present in home automation and building control
   networks, as point-to-point style traffic is substantial and route
   repair needs to be completed within seconds.  RPL-P2P provides a
   reactive mechanism for quick, efficient and root-independent route
   discovery/repair.  The use of RPL-P2P furthermore allows data traffic
   to avoid having to go through a central region around the root of the
   tree, and drastically reduces path length [SOFT11] [INTEROP12].
   These characteristics are desirable in home and building automation
   networks because they substantially decrease unnecessary network
   congestion around the root of the tree.

   When reliability is required, multiple independent paths are used
   with RPL-P2P. For 1-hop destinations this means that one 1-hop
   communication and a second 2-hop communication take place via a
   neigboring node.  The same reliability can be achieved by using MPL
   where the seed is a repeater and a second repeater is 1 hop removed
   from the seed and the destination node.

   RPL-P2P is recommended to keep two independent paths per destination
   in the source.  When one path is temporarily impossible, as described
   in Appendix B, the alternative can be used without throwing away the
   temporarily failing path.  The blocked path can be safely thrown away
   after 15 minutes.  A new route discovery is done when the number of
   paths is exhausted, or when a path needs to abandoned because it
   fails over a too long period.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

4.  RPL Profile

   RPL-P2P MUST be used in home automation and building control
   networks.  Non-storing mode allows for constrained memory in
   repeaters when source routing is used.  Reactive discovery allows for
   low application response times even when on-the-fly route repair is

4.1.  RPL Features

   An important constraint on the application of RPL is the presence of
   sleeping nodes.

   For example in the stand-alone network, the link layer node (master
   node, or coordinator)handing out the logical network identifier and
   unique node identifiers may be a remote control which returns to
   sleep once new nodes have been added.  Due to the absence of the
   border router there may be no global routable prefixes at all.
   Likewise, there may be no authoritative always-on root node since
   there is no border router to host this function.

   In a network with a border router and many sleeping nodes, there may
   be battery powered sensors and wall controllers configured to contact
   other nodes in response to events and then return to sleep.  Such
   nodes may never detect the announcement of new prefixes via

   In each of the above mentioned constrained deployments, a link layer
   node (e.g. coordinator or master) SHOULD assume the role as
   authoritative root node, transmitting singlecast RAs with a ULA
   prefix information option to nodes during the inclusion process to
   prepare the nodes for a later operational phase, where a border
   router is added.

   A border router SHOULD be designed to be aware of sleeping nodes in
   order to support the distribution of updated global prefixes to such
   sleeping nodes.

   One COULD implement gateway-centric tree-based routing and global
   prefix distribution as defined by [RFC6550].  This would however only
   work for always-on nodes.

4.1.1.  RPL Instances

   When operating P2P-RPL on a stand-alone basis, there is no
   authoritative root node maintaining a permanent RPL DODAG.  A node
   MUST be able to join one RPL instance as an instance is created

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   during each P2P-RPL route discovery operation.  A node MAY be
   designed to join multiple RPL instances.

4.1.2.  Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode

   Non-storing mode MUST be used to cope with the extremely constrained
   memory of a majority of nodes in the network (such as individual
   light switches).

4.1.3.  DAO Policy

   A node MAY be designed to join multiple RPL instances; in that case
   DAO policies may be needed.

   DAO policy is out of scope for this applicability statement.

4.1.4.  Path Metrics

   OF0 is RECOMMENDED.  [RFC6551] provides other options.  Using other
   objective functions than OF0 may affect inter-operability.

4.1.5.  Objective Function

   OF0 MUST be supported and is the RECOMMENDED Objective Function to
   use.  Other Objective Functions MAY be used as well.

4.1.6.  DODAG Repair

   Since RPL-P2P only creates DODAGs on a temporary basis during route
   repair, there is no need to repair DODAGs.

   TODO: there is a DODAG needed for SS communication.

4.1.7.  Multicast

   Commercial light deployments may have a need for multicast to
   distribute commands to a group of lights in a timely fashion.
   Several mechanisms exist for achieving such functionality;
   [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] is RECOMMENDED for home and building
   deployments.  This section relies heavily on the conclusions of

   Guaranteeing timeliness is intimately related to the density of the
   MPL routers.  In ideal circumstances the message is propagated as a
   single wave through the network, such that the maximum delay is
   related to the number of hops times the smallest repetition interval
   of MPL.  Each forwarder that receives the message, passes the message
   on to the next hop by repeating the message.  When several copies of

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   a message reach the forwarder, it is specified that the copy need not
   be repeated.  Repetition of the message can be inhibited by a small
   value of k. To assure timeliness, the value of k should be chosen
   high enough to make sure that messages are repeated at the first
   arrival of the message in the forwarder.  However, a network that is
   too dense leads to a saturation of the medium that can only be
   prevented by selecting a low value of k. Consequently, timeliness is
   assured by choosing a relatively high value of k but assuring at the
   same time a low enough density of forwarders to reduce the risk of
   medium saturation.  Depending on the reliability of the network
   channels, it is advisable to choose the network such that at least 2
   forwarders (one forwarder located on the seed) can repeat messages to
   the same set of destinations.

   There are no rules about selecting forwarders for MPL.  In buildings
   with central managment tools, the forwarders can be selected, but in
   the home is not possible to automatically configure the forwarder
   topology at this moment.

4.1.8.  Security

   In order to support low-cost devices and devices running on battery,
   RPL MAY use either unsecured messages or secured messages.  If RPL is
   used with unsecured messages, link layer security SHOULD be used.  If
   RPL is used with secured messages, the following RPL security
   parameter values SHOULD be used:

   o  T = '0': Do not use timestamp in the Counter Field.

   o  Algorithm = '0': Use CCM with AES-128

   o  KIM = '10': Use group key, Key Source present, Key Index present

   o  LVL = 0: Use MAC-32

4.1.9.  P2P communications

   [RFC6997] MUST be used to accommodate P2P traffic, which is typically
   substantial in home and building automation networks.

4.1.10.  IPv6 adddress configuration

   Assigned IP addresses MUST be routable and unique within the routing

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

4.2.  Layer 2 features

   No particular requirements exist for layer 2 but for the ones cited
   in the IP over Foo RFCs.

4.3.  Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges

   The following sections describe the recommended parameter values for
   RPL-P2P, Trickle, and MPL.

4.3.1.  RPL-P2P parameters

   RPL-P2P [RFC6997] provides the features requested by [RFC5826] and
   [RFC5867].  RPL-P2P uses a subset of the frame formats and features
   defined for RPL [RFC6550] but may be combined with RPL frame flows in
   advanced deployments.

   Parameter values for RPL-P2P are:

   o  MinHopRankIncrease 1

   o  MaxRankIncrease 0

   o  MaxRank 6

   o  Objective function: OF0

4.3.2.  Trickle parameters

   Trickle is used to distribute network parameter values to all nodes
   without stringent time restrictions.  Trickle parameter values are:

   o  DIOIntervalMin 4 = 16 ms

   o  DIOIntervalDoublings 14

   o  DIORedundancyConstant 1

4.3.3.  MPL parameters

   MPL is used to distribute values to groups of devices.  In MPL, based
   on Trickle algorithm, also timeliness should be guaranteed.  Under
   the condition that the density of MPL repeaters can be limited, it is
   possible to choose low MPL repeat intervals (Imin) connected to k
   values such that k>2.  The minimum value of k is related to:

   o  Value of Imin.  The length of Imin determines the number of
      packets that can be received within the listening period of Imin.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   o  Number of repeaters repeating the same 1-hop broadcast message.
      These repeaters repeat within the same Imin interval, thus
      increasing the c counter.

   Assuming that at most q message copies can reach a given forwarder
   within the first repeat interval of length Imin, the following MPL
   parameter values are suggested:

   o  I_min = 10 - 50.

   o  I_max = 200 - 400.

   o  k > q (see condition above).

   o  max_expiration = 2 - 4.

5.  Manageability Considerations

   Manageability is out of scope for home network scenarios.  In
   building automation scenarios, central control should be applied
   based on MIBs.

6.  Security Considerations

   Refer to the security considerations of [RFC6997], [RFC6550],

6.1.  Security context considerations

   Wireless networks are typically secured at the link-layer to prevent
   unauthorized parties to access the information exchanged over the
   links.  In mesh networks, it is good practice to create a network of
   nodes which share the same keys for link layer encryptions and
   exclude nodes sending non encrypted messages.  The consequence is
   that unauthorized nodes cannot join the mesh.  This is ensured with
   the Protocol for carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA)
   Relay Element [RFC6345] with the use of PANA [RFC5191] for network
   access.  A new DTLS based protocol is proposed in

   Unauthorized nodes can access the nodes of the mesh via a router.
   End-to-end security between applications is recommended by using DTLS
   [RFC6347] or TLS [RFC5246].

   A thorough analysis of security threats and proposed countermeasures
   relevant to RPL is done in [I-D.ietf-roll-security-threats].

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

6.2.  MPL routing

   The routing of MPL is determined by the enabling of the interfaces
   for specified Multicast addresses.  The specification of these
   addresses can be done via a CoAP application as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm].  An alternative is the creation of a MPL
   MIB and use of SNMPv3 [RFC3411] or CoMI [I-D.vanderstok-core-comi] to
   specify the Multicast addresses in the MIB.  The application of
   security measures for the specification of the multicast addresses
   assures that the routing of MPL packets is secured.

6.3.  Security Considerations for distribution of credentials required
      for RPL

   Communications network security is based on providing integrity
   protection and encryption to messages.  This can be applied at
   various layers in the network protocol stack based on using various
   credentials and a network identity.

   The credentials which are relevant in the case of RPL are: (i) the
   credential used at the link layer in the case where link layer
   security is applied or (ii) the credential used for securing RPL
   messages.  In both cases, the assumption is that the credential is a
   shared key.  Therefore, there MUST be a mechanism in place which
   allows secure distribution of a shared key and configuration of
   network identity.  Both MAY be done using (i) pre-installation using
   an out-of-band method, (ii) delivered securely when a device is
   introduced into the network or (iii) delivered securely by a trusted
   neighboring device.  The shared key MUST be stored in a secure
   fashion which makes it difficult to be read by an unauthorized party.

   Securely delivering a key means that the delivery mechanism MUST have
   data origin authentication, confidentiality and integrity protection.
   Securely storing a key means that the storage mechanism MUST have
   confidentiality and integrity protection and MUST only be accessible
   by an authorized party.

6.4.  Security Considerations for P2P uses

   Refer to the security considerations of [RFC6997].  Many initiatives
   are under way to provide light weight security such as:
   [I-D.keoh-dice-dtls-profile-iot] and

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

7.  Other related protocols

   Application transport protocols may be CoAP over UDP or equivalents.
   Typically, UDP is used for IP transport to keep down the application
   response time and bandwidth overhead.

   Several features required by [RFC5826], [RFC5867] challenge the P2P
   paths provided by RPL.  Appendix A reviews these challenges.  In some
   cases, a node may need to spontaneously initiate the discovery of a
   path towards a desired destination that is neither the root of a DAG,
   nor a destination originating DAO signaling.  Furthermore, P2P paths
   provided by RPL are not satisfactory in all cases because they
   involve too many intermediate nodes before reaching the destination.

8.  IANA Considerations

   No considerations for IANA pertain to this document.

9.  Acknowledgements

   This document reflects discussions and remarks from several
   individuals including (in alphabetical order): Mukul Goyal, Jerry
   Martocci, Charles Perkins, Michael Richardson, and Zach Shelby

10.  Changelog

   Changes from version 0 to version 1.

   o  Adapted section structure to template.

   o  Standardized the reference syntax.

   o  Section 2.2, moved everything concerning algorithms to section
      2.2.7, and adpted text in 2.2.1-2.2.6.

   o  Added MPL parameter text to section 4.1.7 and section 4.3.1.

   o  Replaced all TODO sections with text.

   o  Consistent use of border router, mintoring, home- and building

   o  Reformulated security aspects with references to other

   o  MPL and RPL parameter values introduced.

   Changes form version 1 to version 2.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   o  Clarified common characteristics of control in home and building.

   o  Clarified failure behavior of point to point communication in

   o  Changed examples, more hvac and less lighting.

   o  Clarified network topologies.

   o  replaced reference to smart_object paper by reference to I-D.roll-

   o  Added a concise definition of secure delivery and secure storage

   o  text about securing network with PANA

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3411]  Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
              Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
              December 2002.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, September 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.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5548]  Dohler, M., Watteyne, T., Winter, T., and D. Barthel,
              "Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy
              Networks", RFC 5548, May 2009.

   [RFC5673]  Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney,
              "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy
              Networks", RFC 5673, October 2009.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   [RFC5826]  Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation
              Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC
              5826, April 2010.

   [RFC5867]  Martocci, J., De Mil, P., Riou, N., and W. Vermeylen,
              "Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 5867, June 2010.

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

   [RFC6345]  Duffy, P., Chakrabarti, S., Cragie, R., Ohba, Y., and A.
              Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network
              Access (PANA) Relay Element", RFC 6345, August 2011.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
              Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
              Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.

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

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, March

   [RFC6997]  Goyal, M., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and J.
              Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, August 2013.

              Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 packets
              over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-02
              (work in progress), February 2014.

              Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
              and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
              mcast-06 (work in progress), January 2014.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

              Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
              and M. Richardson, "A Security Threat Analysis for Routing
              Protocol for Low-power and lossy networks (RPL)", draft-
              ietf-roll-security-threats-06 (work in progress), December

              Keoh, S., Kumar, S., and Z. Shelby, "Profiling of DTLS for
              CoAP-based IoT Applications", draft-keoh-dice-dtls-
              profile-iot-00 (work in progress), November 2013.

              Keoh, S., Kumar, S., Garcia-Morchon, O., Dijk, E., and A.
              Rahman, "DTLS-based Multicast Security for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks (LLNs)", draft-keoh-dice-multicast-
              security-04 (work in progress), February 2014.

              Kumar, S., Keoh, S., and O. Garcia-Morchon, "DTLS Relay
              for Constrained Environments", draft-kumar-dice-dtls-
              relay-00 (work in progress), October 2013.

              Rahman, A. and E. Dijk, "Group Communication for CoAP",
              draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-18 (work in progress), December

              Stok, P. and B. Greevenbosch, "CoAp Management
              Interfaces", draft-vanderstok-core-comi-02 (work in
              progress), January 2014.

              "IEEE 802.15.4 - Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks -- Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
              Networks", <IEEE Standard 802.15.4>.

   [G.9959]   "ITU-T G.9959 Short range narrow-band digital
              radiocommunication transceivers - PHY and MAC layer
              specifications", <ITU-T G.9959>.

11.2.  Informative References

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   [SOFT11]   Baccelli, E., Phillip, M., and M. Goyal, "The P2P-RPL
              Routing Protocol for IPv6 Sensor Networks: Testbed
              Experiments", Proceedings of the Conference on Software
              Telecommunications and Computer Networks, Split, Croatia,,
              September 2011.

              Baccelli, E., Phillip, M., Brandt, A., Valev , H., and J.
              Buron , "Report on P2P-RPL Interoperability Testing",
              RR-7864 INRIA Research Report RR-7864, January 2012.

   [RT-MPL]   van der Stok, P., "Real-Time IP-based multicast for low-
              resource wireless network", To be published,, April 2014.

   [RTN2011]  Holtman, K. and P. van der Stok, "Real-time routing for
              low-latency 802.15.4 control networks", International
              Workshop on Real-Time Networks; Euromicro Conference on
              Real-Time Systems, July 2011.

   [MEAS]     Holtman, K., "Connectivity loss in large scale IEEE
              802.15.4 network", Private Communication, November 2013.

Appendix A.  RPL shortcomings in home and building deployments

A.1.  Risk of undesired long P2P routes

   The DAG, being a tree structure is formed from a root.  If nodes
   residing in different branches have a need for communicating
   internally, DAG mechanisms provided in RPL [RFC6550] will propagate
   traffic towards the root, potentially all the way to the root, and
   down along another branch.  In a typical example two nodes could
   reach each other via just two router nodes but in unfortunate cases,
   RPL may send traffic three hops up and three hops down again.  This
   leads to several undesired phenomena described in the following

A.1.1.  Traffic concentration at the root

   If many P2P data flows have to move up towards the root to get down
   again in another branch there is an increased risk of congestion the
   nearer to the root of the DAG the data flows.  Due to the broadcast
   nature of RF systems any child node of the root is not just directing
   RF power downwards its sub-tree but just as much upwards towards the
   root; potentially jamming other MP2P traffic leaving the tree or
   preventing the root of the DAG from sending P2MP traffic into the DAG
   because the listen-before-talk link-layer protection kicks in.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

A.1.2.  Excessive battery consumption in source nodes

   Battery-powered nodes originating P2P traffic depend on the route
   length.  Long routes cause source nodes to stay awake for longer
   periods before returning to sleep.  Thus, a longer route translates
   proportionally (more or less) into higher battery consumption.

A.2.  Risk of delayed route repair

   The RPL DAG mechanism uses DIO and DAO messages to monitor the health
   of the DAG.  In rare occasions, changed radio conditions may render
   routes unusable just after a destination node has returned a DAO
   indicating that the destination is reachable.  Given enough time, the
   next Trickle timer-controlled DIO/DAO update will eventually repair
   the broken routes, however this may not occur in a timely manner
   appropriate to the application.  In an apparently stable DAG,
   Trickle-timer dynamics may reduce the update rate to a few times
   every hour.  If a user issues an actuator command, e.g. light on in
   the time interval between the last DAO message was issued the
   destination module and the time one of the parents sends the next
   DIO, the destination cannot be reached.  There is no mechanism in RPL
   to initiate restoration of connectivity in a reactive fashion.  The
   consequence is a broken service in home and building applications.

A.2.1.  Broken service

   Experience from the telecom industry shows that if the voice delay
   exceeds 250ms, users start getting confused, frustrated and/or
   annoyed.  In the same way, if the light does not turn on within the
   same period of time, a home control user will activate the controls
   again, causing a sequence of commands such as
   Light{on,off,off,on,off,..} or Volume{up,up,up,up,up,...}. Whether
   the outcome is nothing or some unintended response this is
   unacceptable.  A controlling system must be able to restore
   connectivity to recover from the error situation.  Waiting for an
   unknown period of time is not an option.  While this issue was
   identified during the P2P analysis, it applies just as well to
   application scenarios where an IP application outside the LLN
   controls actuators, lights, etc.

Appendix B.  Communication failures

   Measurements on the connectivity between neigbouring nodes are
   discussed in [RTN2011] and [MEAS].

   The work is motivated by the measurements in literature which affirm
   that the range of an antenna is not circle symmetric but that the
   signal strength of a given level follows an intricate pattern around

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   the antenna, and there may be holes within the area delineated by an
   iso-strength line.  It is reported that communication is not
   symmetric: reception of messages from node A by node B does not imply
   reception of messages from node B by node A. The quality of the
   signal fluctuates over time, and also the the height of the antenna
   within a room can have consequences for the range.  As function of
   the distance from the source, three regions are generally recognized:
   (1) a clear region with excellent signal quality, (2) a region with
   fluctuating signal quality, (3) a region without reception.  In the
   text below it is shown that installation of meshes with neigbours in
   the clear region is not sufficient.

   [RTN2011] extends existing work by:

   o  Observations over periods of at least a week,

   o  Testing links that are in the clear region,

   o  Observation in an office building during working hours,

   o  Concentrating on one-hop and two-hop routes.

   Eight nodes were distributed over a surface of 30m2.  All nodes are
   at one hop distance from each other and are situated in the clear
   region of each other.  Each node sends messages to each of its
   neigbours, and repeats the message until it arrives.  The latency of
   the message was measured over periods of at least a week.  It is
   noticed that latencies longer than a second ocurred without apparent
   reasons, but only during working days and never in the weekends.  Bad
   periods could last for minutes.  By sending messages via two paths:
   (1) one hop path directly, and (2) two hop path via random neigbour,
   the probability of delays larger than 100 ms decreased significantly.

   The conclusion is that even for 1-hop communication between not too
   distant "Line of Sight" nodes, there are periods of low reception in
   which communication deadlines of 200 ms are exceeded.  It pays to
   send a second message over a 2-hop path to increase the reliability
   of timely message transfer.

   [MEAS] confirms that temporary bad reception by close neigbours can
   occur within other types of areas.  Nodes were installed on the
   ceiling in a grid with a distance of 30-50 cm between nodes. 200
   nodes were distributed over an area of 10m x 5m. It clearly
   transpired that with increasing distance the probability of reception
   decreases.  At the same time a few nodes furthest away from the
   sender had a high probability of message reception, while some close
   neigbours of the sender did not receive messages.  The patterns of
   clear reception nodes evolved over time.

Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          RPL in home and building           February 2014

   The conclusion is that even for direct neighbours reception can
   temporarily be bad during periods of several minutes.  For a reliable
   and timely communication it is imperative to have at least two
   communication paths available (e.g. two hop paths next to the 1-hop
   path for direct neigbours).

Authors' Addresses

   Anders Brandt
   Sigma Designs


   Emmanuel Baccelli


   Robert Cragie


   Peter van der Stok


Brandt, et al.           Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 24]