Networking Working Group P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track February 18, 2010
Expires: August 22, 2010
RPL Objective Function 0
draft-ietf-roll-of0-01
Abstract
The Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) defines a
generic Distance Vector protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks
(LLNs). RPL is instantiated to honor a particular routing objective/
constraint by the adding a specific Objective Function (OF) that is
designed to solve that problem. This specification defines a basic
OF, OF0, that uses only the abstract properties exposed in RPL
messages to maximize connectivity.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2010.
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Basic Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Selection of the Preferred Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Selection of the Backup next_hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. OF0 Constants and Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
1. Introduction
The IETF ROLL Working Group has defined application-specific routing
requirements for a Low Power and Lossy Network (LLN) routing
protocol, specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs],
[I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs], [RFC5673], and [RFC5548].
Considering the wide variety of use cases, link types and metrics,
the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] was designed as a generic core that is agnostic
to metrics and instantiated using Objective Functions.
RPL forms Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs)
within instances of the protocol, each instance being set up to honor
a particular routing objective/constraint of a given deployment.
This instantiation is achieved by plugging into the RPL core a
specific Objective Function (OF) that is designed to solve that
problem to be addressed by that instance.
the Objective Function selects the DODAG iteration that a device
joins, and a number of neighbor routers within that iteration as
parents and siblings. The OF is also responsible for computing the
Rank of the device, that abstracts a relative position within the
DODAG and is used by the RPL core to enable a degree of loop
avoidance and verify forward progression towards a destination, as
specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
This document defines the Objective Function 0 (OF0), which operates
on information defined in the RPL specification [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
and does not require any additional option.
2. Terminology
The terminology used in this document is consistent with and
incorporates that described in `Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks' [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology] and [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].
3. Basic Objective Function
This specification defines the basic Objective Function, that is also
called OF0 since it corresponds to the Objective Code Point 0. OF0
does not leverage link layer metrics such as described in
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics], but is only based on abstract
information from the DIO base container, such as Rank and
administrative preference.
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
3.1. Goal
The Goal of the OF0 is to join a DODAG iteration that offers
connectivity to a specific set of nodes or to a larger routing
infrastructure. For the purpose of OF0, Grounded thus means that the
root provides such connectivity. How that connectivity is asserted
and maintained is out of scope.
Objective Function 0 is designed to find the nearest Grounded root.
In the absence of a Grounded root, LLN inner connectivity is still
desirable and floating DAGs will form, rooted at the nodes with the
highest administrative preference.
The metric used in OF0 is the RPL Rank, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. Using a metric that in essence is similar to
hop count implies that the quality of the connectivity should be
asserted so that only neighbors with a good enough connectivity are
presented to the OF. How that connectivity is asserted and
maintained is out of scope.
The default step of Rank is DEFAULT_RANK_INCREMENT for each hop. An
implementation MAY allow a step between MINIMUM_RANK_INCREMENT and
MAXIMUM_RANK_INCREMENT to reflect a large variation of link quality.
It MAY stretch its step of Rank by up to MAXIMUM_RANK_STRETCH in
order to enable the selection of a sibling when only one parent is
available. For instance, say that a node computes a step of Rank of
4 units of MINIMUM_RANK_INCREMENT from a preferred parent with a Rank
of 6 units resulting in a Rank of 10 units for this node. Say that
with that Rank of 10 units, this node would end up with only one
parent and no sibling, though there is a neighbor with a Rank of 12
units. In that case, the node is entitled to stretch its step of
Rank by a value of 2 units, thus using a step of Rank of 6 units so
as to reach a Rank of 12 units and find a sibling. But the node is
not entitled to use a step of Rank larger than 6 units since that
would be a greedy behavior that would deprive the neighbor of this
snode as a successor. Also, if the neighbor had exposed a Rank of 16
units, the stretch of Rank from 10 to 16 units would have exceeded
MAXIMUM_RANK_STRETCH of 4 units and thus the neighbor would not have
been selectable even as a sibling.
Optionally, the administrative preference of a root MAY be configured
to supercede the goal to reach Grounded root. In that case, nodes
will associate to the root with the highest preference available,
regardless of whether that root is Grounded or not. Compared to a
deployment with a multitude of Grounded roots that would result in a
same multitude of DODAGs, such a configuration may result in possibly
less but larger DODAGs, as many as roots configured with the highest
priority in the reachable vincinity.
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
OF0 selects a preferred parent and a backup next_hop if one is
available. The backup next_hop might be a parent or a sibling. All
the traffic is routed via the preferred parent. When the link
conditions do not let a packet through the preferred parent, the
packet is passed to the backup next_hop.
3.2. Selection of the Preferred Parent
As it scans all the candidate neighbors, OF0 keeps the parent that is
the best for the following criteria (in order):
1. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] spells out the generic rules for a node to
reparent and in particular the boundaries to augment its Rank
within a DODAG iteration. A candidate that would not satisfy
those rules MUST NOT be considered.
2. An implementation should validate a router prior to selecting it
as preferred. This validation process is implementation and
link type dependent, and is out of scope. A router that has
been validated is preferrable.
3. When multiple interfaces are available, a policy might be
locally configured to prioritize them and that policy applies
first; that is a router on a higher order interface is
preferable.
4. In the absence of a Grounded DODAG iteration, the router with a
higher administrative preference SHOULD be preferred.
Optionally, this selection applies regardless of whether the
DODAG is Grounded or not.
5. A router that offers connectivity to a grounded DODAG iteration
SHOULD be preferred over one that does not.
6. When comparing 2 routers that belong to the same DODAG, a router
that offers connectivity to the freshest sequence SHOULD be
preferred.
7. When computing a resulting Rank for this node from a parent Rank
and a Step of Rank from that parent, the parent that causes the
lesser resulting Rank SHOULD be preferred.
8. A DODAG iteration for which there is an alternate parent SHOULD
be preferred. This check is optional. It is performed by
computing the backup next_hop while assuming that the router
that is currently examined is finally selected as preferred
parent.
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
9. The DODAG iteration that was in use already SHOULD be preferred.
10. The preferred parent that was in use already SHOULD be
preferred.
11. A router that has announced a DIO message more recently SHOULD
be preferred.
3.3. Selection of the Backup next_hop
o When multiple interfaces are available, a router on a higher order
interface is preferable.
o The preferred parent MUST be ignored.
o A Router that is not in the same DODAG as the preferred parent,
either in the current or a subsequent iteration, MUST be ignored.
o A Router with a Rank that is higher than the Rank computed for
this node out of the preferred parent SHOULD NOT be selected as
parent, to avoid greedy behaviors. It MAY still be selected as
sibling if no better Back-up next hop is found.
o A router with a lesser Rank SHOULD be preferred.
o A router that has been validated as usable by an implementation
dependant validation process SHOULD be preferred.
o The backup next_hop that was in use already SHOULD be preferred.
4. OF0 Constants and Variables
OF0 uses the following constants:
MinHopRankIncrease: 256
DEFAULT_RANK_INCREMENT: 4 * MinHopRankIncrease
MINIMUM_RANK_INCREMENT: 1 * MinHopRankIncrease
MAXIMUM_RANK_INCREMENT: 16 * MinHopRankIncrease
MAXIMUM_RANK_STRETCH: 4 * MinHopRankIncrease
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
5. IANA Considerations
IThis specification requires the assignment of an OCP for OF0. The
value of 0 is suggested.
6. Security Considerations
Security Considerations for OCP/OF are to be developed in accordance
with recommendations laid out in, for example,
[I-D.tsao-roll-security-framework].
7. Acknowledgements
Most specific thanks to Tim Winter, JP Vasseur, Julien Abeille and
Mathilde Durvy for in-depth review and first hand implementer's
feedback.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs]
Martocci, J., Riou, N., Mil, P., and W. Vermeylen,
"Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07
(work in progress), September 2009.
[I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs]
Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation
Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs-08 (work in progress),
September 2009.
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]
Vasseur, J. and D. Networks, "Routing Metrics used for
Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-04 (work in progress),
December 2009.
[I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 February 2010
Winter, T., Thubert, P., and R. Team, "RPL: IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06 (work in progress), February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-02 (work in
progress), October 2009.
[I-D.tsao-roll-security-framework]
Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., and A.
Lozano, "A Security Framework for Routing over Low Power
and Lossy Networks", draft-tsao-roll-security-framework-01
(work in progress), September 2009.
[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.
Author's Address
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Batiment T3
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Thubert Expires August 22, 2010 [Page 8]
