ROLL R. Koutsiamanis, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Papadopoulos
Intended status: Standards Track N. Montavont
Expires: September 10, 2020 IMT Atlantique
P. Thubert
Cisco
March 9, 2020
Common Ancestor Objective Function and Parent Set DAG Metric Container
Extension
draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension-07
Abstract
Packet Replication and Elimination is a method in which several
copies of a data packet are sent in the network in order to achieve
high reliability and low jitter. This document details how to apply
Packet Replication and Elimination in RPL, especially how to exchange
information within RPL control packets to let a node better select
the different parents that will be used to forward the multiple
copies of a packet. This document also describes the Objective
Function which takes advantage of this information to implement
multi-path routing.
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 https://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, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Common Ancestor AP Selection Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Common Ancestor Strict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Common Ancestor Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Common Ancestor Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension . . . . 9
5.1. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Controlling PRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Other Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Choosing an AP selection policy . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Networks in the industrial context must provide stringent guarantees
in terms of reliability and predictability, with this domain being
one of main ones addressed by Deterministic Networking [RFC8557].
Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE)
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] is a technique which allows
redundant paths in the network to be utilized for traffic requiring
higher reliability. Allowing industrial applications to function
over wireless networks requires the application of the principles and
architecture of Deterministic Networking [RFC8655]. This results in
designs which aim at optimizing packet delivery rate and bounding
latency. Additionally, nodes operating on battery need to minimize
their energy consumption.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
As an example, to meet this goal, IEEE Std. 802.15.4 [IEEE802154]
provides Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), a mode of operation
which uses a common communication schedule based on timeslots to
allow deterministic medium access as well as channel hopping to work
around radio interference. However, since TSCH uses retransmissions
in the event of a failed transmission, end-to-end latency and jitter
performance can deteriorate.
Furthermore, the 6TiSCH working group, focusing on IPv6 over IEEE
Std. 802.15.4-TSCH, has worked on these issues and produced the
"6TiSCH Architecture" [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] to address that
case. Building on this architecture, "Exploiting Packet Replication
and Elimination in Complex Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs"
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] leverages PRE to improve the
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), to provide a hard bound to the end-to-
end latency, and thus to limit jitter.
PRE is a general method of maximizing packet delivery rate and
potentially minimizing latency and jitter, not limited to 6TiSCH.
More specifically, PRE achieves controlled redundancy by laying
multiple forwarding paths through the network and using them in
parallel for different copies of a same packet. PRE can follow the
Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) formed by RPL
from a node to the root. Building a multi-path DODAG can be achieved
based on the RPL capability of having multiple parents for each node
in a network, a subset of which is used to forward packets. In order
to select parents to be part of this subset, the RPL Objective
Function (OF) needs additional information regarding the multi-path
nature of PRE. This document describes an OF which implements multi-
path routing for PRE and specifies the transmission of this specific
path information.
This document describes a new Objective Function (OF) called the
Common Ancestor (CA) OF. A detailed description is given of how the
path information is used within the CA OF and how the subset of
parents for forwarding packets is selected. This specification
defines a new Objective Code Point (OCP) for the CA OF.
For the path information, this specification focuses on the
extensions to the DAG Metric Container [RFC6551] required for
providing the PRE mechanism a part of the information it needs to
operate. This information is the RPL [RFC6550] parent address set of
a node and it must be sent to potential children of the node. The
RPL DIO Control Message is the canonical way of broadcasting this
kind of information and therefore its DAG Metric Container [RFC6551]
field is used to append a Node State and Attribute (NSA) object. The
node's parent address set is stored as an optional TLV within the NSA
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
object. This specification defines the type value and structure for
the parent address set TLV.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The draft uses the following Terminology:
Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE): A method which consists of
transmitting multiple copies of a packet using multi-path
forwarding over a multi-hop network and which consolidates
multiple received packet copies to control flooding. See
"Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks
in 6TiSCH LLNs" [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs] for more
details.
Parent Set (PS): Given a RPL node, the set of its neighbor nodes
which participate in the same RPL DODAG and which can potentially
take the role of the node's preferred parent.
Alternative Parent (AP): A RPL parent in the parent set of a node
which is used to forward a packet copy when replicating packets.
Alternative Parent (AP) Selection: The mechanism for choosing the
next hop node to forward a packet copy when replicating packets.
Preferred Grand Parent (PGP): The preferred parent of the preferred
parent of a node.
3. Common Ancestor AP Selection Policies
In the RPL protocol, each node maintains a list of potential parents.
For PRE, the Preferred Parent (PP) node is defined to be the same as
the RPL DODAG Preferred Parent node. Furthermore, to construct an
alternative path toward the root, in addition to the PP node, each
node in the network selects additional parent(s), called alternative
parent(s), from its Parent Set (PS).
There are multiple possible policies of selecting the AP node. This
section details three such possible policies.
All three policies defined perform AP selection based on common
ancestors, named Common Ancestor Strict, Common Ancestor Medium, and
Common Ancestor Relaxed, depending on how restrictive the selection
process is. A more restrictive policy will limit flooding but might
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
fail to select an appropriate AP, while a less restrictive one will
more often find an appropriate AP but might increase flooding.
All three policies apply their corresponding common ancestor
criterion to filter the list of candidate neighbours in the
alternative parent set.
3.1. Common Ancestor Strict
In the CA Strict OF the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent
(PGP), the PP of its PP, is the same as the PP of the potential AP.
( R ) root
. PS(S) = {A, B, C, D}
. PP(S) = C
. PP(PP(S)) = Y
.
PS(A) = {W, X}
( W ) ( X ) ( Y ) ( Z ) PP(A) = X
^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^^^ ^ ^ ^^
| \ // | \ // || \ / || PS(B) = {W, X, Y}
| // | // || / || PP(B) = Y
| // \ | // \ || / \ ||
| // \ | // \ || / \ || PS(C) = {X, Y, Z}
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) ( D ) PP(C) = Y
^ ^ ^^ ^
\ \ || / PS(D) = {Y, Z}
\ \ || / PP(D) = Z
\ \ || /
\----\\ || / || Preferred Parent
( S ) source | Potential Alternative Parent
Figure 1: Example Common Ancestor Strict Alternative Parent Selection
policy
For example, in Figure 1, the source node S must know its grandparent
sets through nodes A, B, C, and D. The Parent Sets (PS) and the
Preferred Parents (PS) of nodes A, B, C, and D are shown on the side
of the figure. The CA Strict parent selection policy will select an
AP for node S for which PP(PP(S)) = PP(AP). Given that PP(PP(S)) =
Y:
o Node A: PP(A) = X and therefore it is different than PP(PP(S))
o Node B: PS(B) = Y and therefore it is equal to PP(PP(S))
o Node D: PS(D) = Z and therefore it is different than PP(PP(S))
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
node S can decide to use node B as its AP node, since PP(PP(S)) = Y =
PP(B).
3.2. Common Ancestor Medium
In the CA Medium OF the node will check if its Preferred Grand Parent
(PGP), the PP of its PP, is contained in the PS of the potential AP.
Using the same example, in Figure 1, the CA Medium parent selection
policy will select an AP for node S for which PP(PP(S)) is in PS(AP).
Given that PP(PP(S)) = Y:
o Node A: PS(A) = {W, X} and therefore PP(PP(S)) is not in the set
o Node B: PS(B) = {W, X, Y} and therefore PP(PP(S)) is in the set
o Node D: PS(D) = {Y, Z} and therefore PP(PP(S)) is in the set
node S can decide to use node B or D as its AP node.
3.3. Common Ancestor Relaxed
In the CA Relaxed OF the node will check if the Parent Set (PS) of
its Preferred Parent (PP) has a node in common with the PS of the
potential AP.
Using the same example, in Figure 1, the CA Relaxed parent selection
policy will select an AP for node S for which PS(PP(S)) has at least
one node in common with PS(AP). Given that PS(PP(S)) = {X, Y, Z}:
o Node A: PS(A) = {W, X} and the common nodes are {X}
o Node B: PS(B) = {W, X, Y} and the common nodes are {X, Y}
o Node D: PS(D) = {Y, Z} and the common nodes are {Y, Z}
node S can decide to use node A, B or D as its AP node.
4. Common Ancestor Objective Function
An OF which allows the multiple paths to remain correlated is
detailed here. More specifically, when using this OF a node will
select an AP node close to its PP node to allow the operation of
overhearing between parents. For more details about overhearing and
its use in this context see Section 4.3. "Promiscuous Overhearing"
in "Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex Tracks
in 6TiSCH LLNs" [I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs]. If multiple
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
potential APs match this condition, the AP with the lowest rank will
be registered.
The OF described here is an extension of the The Minimum Rank with
Hysteresis Objective Function [RFC6719] (MRHOF). In general, this OF
extends MRHOF by specifying how an AP is selected. Importantly, the
calculation of the rank of the node through each candidate neighbor
and the selection of the PP is kept the same as in MRHOF.
The ways in which the CA OF modifies MRHOF in a section-by-section
manner follows in detail:
MRHOF Section 3. "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective
Function":
Same as MRHOF extended to AP selection. Minimum Rank path
selection and switching applies correspondingly to the AP with the
extra CA requirement of having some match between ancestors.
MRHOF Section 3.1. "Computing the Path Cost": Same as MRHOF
extended to AP selection. If a candidate neighbor does not
fulfill the CA requirement then the path through that neighbor
SHOULD be set to MAX_PATH_COST, the same value used by MRHOF. As
a result, the node MUST NOT select the candidate neighbor as its
AP.
MRHOF Section 3.2. "Parent Selection": Same as MRHOF extended to AP
selection. To allow hysteresis, AP selection maintains a
variable, cur_ap_min_path_cost, which is the path cost of the
current AP.
MRHOF Section 3.2.1. "When Parent Selection Runs": Same as MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 3.2.2. "Parent Selection Algorithm": Same as MRHOF
extended to AP selection. If the smallest path cost for paths
through the candidate neighbors is smaller than
cur_ap_min_path_cost by less than PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD (the
same variable as MRHOF uses), the node MAY continue to use the
current AP. Additionally, if there is no PP selected, there MUST
NOT be any AP selected as well. Finally, as with MRHOF, a node
MAY include up to PARENT_SET_SIZE-1 additional candidate neighbors
in its alternative parent set. The value of PARENT_SET_SIZE is
the same as in MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 3.3. "Computing Rank": Same as MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 3.4. "Advertising the Path Cost": Same as MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 3.5. "Working without Metric Containers":
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
It is not possible to work without metric containers, since CA AP
selection requires information from parents regarding their parent
sets, which is transmitted via the NSA object in the DIO Mectric
Container.
MRHOF Section 4. "Using MRHOF for Metric Maximization":
Same as MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 5. "MRHOF Variables and Parameters": Same as MRHOF
extended to AP selection. The CA OF operates like MRHOF for AP
selection by maintaining separate:
AP: Corresponding to the MRHOF PP. Hysteresis is configured for
AP with the same PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD parameter as in MRHOF.
The AP MUST NOT be the same as the PP.
Alternative parent set: Corresponding to the MRHOF parent set.
The size is defined by the same PARENT_SET_SIZE parameter as in
MRHOF. The Alternative parent set MUST be a non-strict subset
of the parent set.
cur_ap_min_path_cost: Corresponding to the MRHOF
cur_min_path_cost variable. To support the operation of the
hysteresis function for AP selection.
MRHOF Section 6. "Manageability": Same as MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 6.1. "Device Configuration": Same as MRHOF.
MRHOF Section 6.2. "Device Monitoring": Same as MRHOF.
4.1. Usage
All OF policies apply their corresponding criterion to filter the
list of candidate neighbours in the alternative parent set. The AP
is then selected from the alternative parent set based on Rank and
using hysteresis as is done for the PP in MRHOF. It is noteworthy
that the OF uses the same Objective Code Point (OCP): TBD1 for all
policies used.
The PS information can be used by any of the described AP selection
policies or other ones not described here, depending on requirements.
It is optional for all nodes to use the same AP selection policies.
Different nodes may use different AP selection policies, since the
selection policy is local to each node. For example, using different
policies can be used to vary the transmission reliability in each
hop.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
5. Node State and Attribute (NSA) object type extension
In order to select their AP node, nodes need to be aware of their
grandparent node sets. Within RPL [RFC6550], the nodes use the DODAG
Information Object (DIO) Control Message to broadcast information
about themselves to potential children. However, RPL [RFC6550], does
not define how to propagate parent set related information, which is
what this document addresses.
DIO messages can carry multiple options, out of which the DAG Metric
Container option [RFC6551] is the most suitable structurally and
semantically for the purpose of carrying the parent set. The DAG
Metric Container option itself can carry different nested objects,
out of which the Node State and Attribute (NSA) [RFC6551] is
appropriate for transferring generic node state data. Within the
Node State and Attribute it is possible to store optional TLVs
representing various node characteristics. As per the Node State and
Attribute (NSA) [RFC6551] description, no TLV has been defined for
use. This document defines one TLV for the purpose of transmitting a
node's parent set.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |Version Number | Rank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G|0| MOP | Prf | DTSN | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DAGMC Type (2)| DAGMC Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
// DAG Metric Container data //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Example DIO Message with a DAG Metric Container option
Figure 2 shows the structure of the DIO Control Message when a DAG
Metric Container option is included. The DAG Metric Container option
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
type (DAGMC Type in Figure 2) has the value 0x02 as per the IANA
registry for the RPL Control Message Options, and is defined in
[RFC6550]. The DAG Metric Container option length (DAGMC Length in
Figure 2) expresses the DAG Metric Container length in bytes. DAG
Metric Container data holds the actual data and is shown expanded in
Figure 3.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Routing-MC-Type|Res Flags|P|C|O|R| A | Prec | Length (bytes)| |MC
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Flags |A|O| PS type | PS Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |NSA
| PS IPv6 address(es) ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DAG Metric Container (MC) data with Node State and
Attribute (NSA) object body and a TLV
The structure of the DAG Metric Container data in the form of a Node
State and Attribute (NSA) object with a TLV in the NSA Optional TLVs
field is shown in Figure 3. The first 32 bits comprise the DAG
Metric Container header and all the following bits are part of the
Node State and Attribute object body, as defined in [RFC6551]. This
document defines a new TLV, which CAN be carried in the Node State
and Attribute (NSA) object Optional TLVs field. The TLV is named
Parent Set and is abbreviated as PS in Figure 3.
PS type: The type of the Parent Set TLV. The value is TBD2.
PS Length: The total length of the TLV value field (PS IPv6
address(es)) in bytes. The length is an integral multiple of
16, the number of bytes in an IPv6 address.
PS IPv6 address(es) One or more 128-bit IPv6 address(es) without any
separator between them. The field consists of one IPv6 address
per parent in the parent set. The parent addresses are listed
in decreasing order of preference and not all parents in the
parent set need to be included. The selection of how many
parents from the parent set are to be included is left to the
implementation. The number of parent addresses in the PS IPv6
address(es) field can be deduced by dividing the length of the
PS IPv6 address(es) field in bytes by 16, the number of bytes
in an IPv6 address.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
5.1. Usage
The PS SHOULD be used in the process of parent selection, and
especially in AP selection, since it can help the alternative path to
not significantly deviate from the preferred path. The Parent Set is
information local to the node that broadcasts it.
The PS is used only within NSA objects configured as a metric,
therefore the DAG Metric Container field "C" MUST be 0.
Additionally, since the information in the PS needs to be propagated
downstream but it cannot be aggregated, the DAG Metric Container
field "R" MUST be 1. Finally, since the information contained is by
definition partial, more specifically just the parent set of the DIO-
sending node, the DAG Metric Container field "P" MUST be 1.
It is important that the PS does not affect the calculation of the
rank through candidate neighbors. It is only used with the CA OF to
remove nodes which do not fulfill the CA OF criteria from the
candidate neighbor list.
6. Controlling PRE
PRE is very helpful when the aim is to increase reliability for a
certain path, however its use creates additional traffic as part of
the replication process. It is conceivable that not all paths have
stringent reliability requirements. Therefore, a way to control
whether PRE is applied to a path's packets SHOULD be implemented.
For example, a traffic class label can be used to determine this
behavior per flow type as described in Deterministic Networking
Architecture [RFC8655].
7. Security Considerations
The structure of the DIO control message is extended, within the pre-
defined DIO options. The additional information are the IPv6
addresses of the parent set of the node transmitting the DIO. This
use of this additional information can have the following potential
consequences:
o A malicious node that can receive and read the DIO can "see"
further than it's own neighbourhood by one hop, learning the
addresses of it's two hop neighbors. This is a privacy / network
discovery issue.
o A malicious node that can send DIOs can use the parent set
extension to convince neighbours to route through itself, instead
of the normal preferred parent they would use. However, this is
already possible with other OFs (like OF0 [RFC6552] and MRHOF
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
[RFC6719]) by reporting a fake rank value in the DIO, thus
masquerading as the DODAG root.
8. IANA Considerations
This proposal requests the allocation of a new value TBD1 from the
"Objective Code Point (OCP)" sub-registry of the "Routing Protocol
for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry.
This proposal also requests the allocation of a new value TBD2 for
the "Parent Set" TLV from the Routing Metric/Constraint TLVs sub-
registry from IANA.
9. References
9.1. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28 (work
in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-reqs]
Papadopoulos, G., Montavont, N., and P. Thubert,
"Exploiting Packet Replication and Elimination in Complex
Tracks in 6TiSCH LLNs", draft-papadopoulos-6tisch-pre-
reqs-02 (work in progress), July 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
[RFC6552] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)",
RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>.
[RFC6719] Gnawali, O. and P. Levis, "The Minimum Rank with
Hysteresis Objective Function", RFC 6719,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6719, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6719>.
[RFC8557] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8557>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
9.2. Other Informative References
[IEEE802154]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std
802.15.4 Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (WPANs)", December 2015.
9.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/ariskou/contiki/tree/draft-koutsiamanis-roll-
nsa-extension
[2] https://code.wireshark.org/review/gitweb?p=wireshark.git;a=commit
;h=e2f6ba229f45d8ccae2a6405e0ef41f1e61da138
Appendix A. Implementation Status
A research-stage implementation of the PRE mechanism using the
proposed extension as part of a 6TiSCH IOT use case was developed at
IMT Atlantique, France by Tomas Lagos Jenschke and Remous-Aris
Koutsiamanis. It was implemented on the open-source Contiki OS and
tested with the Cooja simulator. The DIO DAGMC NSA extension is
implemented with a configurable number of parents from the parent set
of a node to be reported.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
( R )
(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)
(31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36)
(41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46)
(51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56)
( S )
Figure 4: Simulation Topology
The simulation setup is:
Topology: 32 nodes structured in regular grid as show in Figure 4.
Node S (source) is the only data packet sender, and send data to
node R (root). The parent set of each node (except R) is all the
nodes in the immediately higher row, the immediately above 6
nodes. For example, each node in {51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56} is
connected to all of {41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46}. Node 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16 have a single upwards link to R.
MAC: TSCH with 1 retransmission
Platform: Cooja
Schedule: Static, 2 timeslots per link from each node to each parent
in its parent set, 1 broadcast EB slot, 1 sender-based shared
timeslot (for DIO and DIS) per node (total of 32).
Simulation lifecycle: Allow link formation for 100 seconds before
starting to send data packets. Afterwards, S sends data packets
to R. The simulation terminates when 1000 packets have been sent
by S.
Radio Links: Every 60 s, a new Packet Delivery Rate is randomly
drawn for each link, with a uniform distribution spanning the 70%
to 100% interval.
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
Traffic Pattern: CBR, S sends one non-fragmented UDP packet every 5
seconds to R.
PS extension size: 3 parents.
Routing Methods:
* RPL: The default RPL non-PRE implementation in Contiki OS.
* 2nd ETX: PRE with a parent selection method which picks as AP
the 2nd best parent in the parent set based on ETX.
* CA Strict: As described in Section 3.1.
* CA Medium: As described in Section 3.2.
Simulation results:
+-----------+---------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Routing | Average | Average | Average |
| Method | Packet | Traversed | Duplications/packet |
| | Delivery Rate | Nodes/packet | (#) |
| | (%) | (#) | |
+-----------+---------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| RPL | 82.70 | 5.56 | 7.02 |
| 2nd ETX | 99.38 | 14.43 | 31.29 |
| CA Strict | 97.32 | 9.86 | 18.23 |
| CA Medium | 99.66 | 13.75 | 28.86 |
+-----------+---------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Links:
o Contiki OS DIO DAGMC NSA extension (draft-koutsiamanis-roll-nsa-
extension branch) [1]
o Wireshark dissectors (for the optional PS TLV) - currently merged
/ in master [2]
Appendix B. Choosing an AP selection policy
The manner of choosing an AP selection policy is left to the
implementation, for maximum flexibility.
For example, a different policy can be used per traffic type. The
network configurator can choose the CA Relaxed policy to increase
reliability (thus producing some flooding) for specific, extremely
important, alert packets. On the other hand, all normal data traffic
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
uses the CA Strict policy. Therefore, an exception is made just for
the alert packets.
Another option would be to devise a new disjoint policy, where the
paths are on purpose non-correlated, to increase path diversity and
resilience against whole groups of nodes failing. The disadvantage
may be increased jitter.
Finally, a network configurator may provide the CA policies with a
preference order of Strict > Medium > Relaxed as a means of falling
back to more flood-prone policies to maintain reliability.
Authors' Addresses
Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis (editor)
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 126A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes 35510
FRANCE
Phone: +33 299 12 70 49
Email: aris@ariskou.com
Georgios Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 114A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes 35510
FRANCE
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Nicolas Montavont
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 106A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes 35510
FRANCE
Phone: +33 299 12 70 23
Email: nicolas.montavont@imt-atlantique.fr
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CA OF and PS DAG MC Extension March 2020
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
FRANCE
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Koutsiamanis, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 17]