Networking Working Group M. Dohler, Ed.
Internet-Draft CTTC
Intended status: Informational T. Watteyne, Ed.
Expires: April 23, 2009 CITI-Lab, INRIA A4RES
T. Winter, Ed.
Eka Systems
D. Barthel, Ed.
France Telecom R&D
October 20, 2008
Urban WSNs Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks
draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 April 23, 2009.
Abstract
The application-specific routing requirements for Urban Low Power and
Lossy Networks (U-LLNs) are presented in this document. In the near
future, sensing and actuating nodes will be placed outdoors in urban
environments so as to improve the people's living conditions as well
as to monitor compliance with increasingly strict environmental laws.
These field nodes are expected to measure and report a wide gamut of
data, such as required in smart metering, waste disposal,
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
meteorological, pollution and allergy reporting applications. The
majority of these nodes is expected to communicate wirelessly which -
given the limited radio range and the large number of nodes -
requires the use of suitable routing protocols. The design of such
protocols will be mainly impacted by the limited resources of the
nodes (memory, processing power, battery, etc.) and the
particularities of the outdoor urban application scenarios. As such,
for a wireless Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (ROLL)
solution to be useful, the protocol(s) ought to be energy-efficient,
scalable, and autonomous. This documents aims to specify a set of
requirements reflecting these and further U-LLNs tailored
characteristics.
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].
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of Urban Low Power Lossy Networks . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Canonical Network Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Actuators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Link Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Urban LLN Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Deployment of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Association and Disassociation/Disappearance of Nodes . . 9
4.3. Regular Measurement Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Queried Measurement Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Alert Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Traffic Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Requirements of Urban LLN Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Parameter Constrained Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Support of Autonomous and Alien Configuration . . . . . . 14
6.4. Support of Highly Directed Information Flows . . . . . . . 15
6.5. Support of Multicast, Anycast, and Implementation of
Groupcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6. Network Dynamicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.7. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
1. Introduction
This document details application-specific routing requirements for
Urban Low Power and Lossy Networks (U-LLNs). U-LLN use cases and
associated routing protocol requirements will be described.
Section 2 defines terminology useful in describing U-LLNs.
Section 3 provides an overview of U-LLN applications.
Section 4 describes a few typical use cases for U-LLN applications
exemplifying deployment problems and related routing issues.
Section 5 describes traffic flows that will be typical for U-LLN
applications.
Section 6 discusses the routing requirements for networks comprising
such constrained devices in a U-LLN environment. These requirements
may be overlapping requirements derived from other application-
specific requirements documents [I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs]
[I-D.ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs]
[I-D.martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs].
Section 7 provides an overview of routing security considerations of
U-LLN implementations.
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.vasseur-roll-terminology]. This terminology is
extended in this document as follows:
Anycast: Addressing and Routing scheme for forwarding packets to at
least one of the "nearest" interfaces from a group, as
described in RFC4291 [RFC4291] and RFC1546 [RFC1546].
Autonomous: Refers to the ability of a routing protocol to
independently function without requiring any external influence
or guidance. Includes self-configuration and self-organization
capabilities.
ISM band: Industrial, Scientific and Medical band. This is a region
of radio spectrum where low power unlicensed devices may
generally be used, with specific guidance from an applicable
local radio spectrum authority.
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
U-LLN: Urban Low Power and Lossy network.
WLAN: Wireless Local Area Network.
3. Overview of Urban Low Power Lossy Networks
3.1. Canonical Network Elements
A U-LLN is understood to be a network composed of three key elements,
i.e.
1. sensors,
2. actuators, and
3. routers.
which communicate wirelessly.
3.1.1. Sensors
Sensing nodes measure a wide gamut of physical data, including but
not limited to:
1. municipal consumption data, such as smart-metering of gas, water,
electricity, waste, etc;
2. meteorological data, such as temperature, pressure, humidity, UV
index, strength and direction of wind, etc;
3. pollution data, such as gases (SO2, NOx, CO, Ozone), heavy metals
(e.g. Mercury), pH, radioactivity, etc;
4. ambient data, such as allergic elements (pollen, dust),
electromagnetic pollution, noise levels, etc.
Sensor nodes are capable of forwarding data. Sensor nodes are
generally not mobile in the majority of near-future roll-outs. In
many anticipated roll-outs, sensor nodes may suffer from long-term
resource constraints.
A prominent example is a Smart Grid application which consists of a
city-wide network of smart meters and distribution monitoring
sensors. Smart meters in an urban Smart Grid application will
include electric, gas, and/or water meters typically administered by
one or multiple utility companies. These meters will be capable of
advanced sensing functionalities such as measuring the quality of
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
electrical service provided to a customer, providing granular
interval data, or automating the detection of alarm conditions. In
addition they may be capable of advanced interactive functionalities,
which may invoke an Actuator component, such as remote service
disconnect or remote demand reset. More advanced scenarios include
demand response systems for managing peak load, and distribution
automation systems to monitor the infrastructure which delivers
energy throughout the urban environment. Sensor nodes capable of
providing this type of functionality may sometimes be referred to as
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI).
3.1.2. Actuators
Actuator nodes control urban devices upon being instructed by
signaling traffic; examples are street or traffic lights. The amount
of actuator points is well below the number of sensing nodes. Some
sensing nodes may include an actuator component, e.g. an electric
meter node with integrated support for remote service disconnect.
Actuators are capable of forwarding data. Actuators are not likely
to be mobile in the majority of near-future roll-outs. Actuator
nodes may also suffer from long-term resource constraints, e.g. in
the case where they are battery powered.
3.1.3. Routers
Routers generally act to close coverage and routing gaps within the
interior of the U-LLN; examples of their use are:
1. prolong the U-LLN's lifetime,
2. balance nodes' energy depletion,
3. build advanced sensing infrastructures.
There can be several routers supporting the same U-LLN; however, the
number of routers is well below the amount of sensing nodes. The
routers are generally not mobile, i.e. fixed to a random or pre-
planned location. Routers may but generally do not suffer from any
form of (long-term) resource constraint, except that they need to be
small and sufficiently cheap. Routers differ from actuator and
sensing nodes in that they neither control nor sense.
Some routers provide access to wider infrastructures, such as the
Internet, and are named Low power and lossy network Border Routers
(LBRs) in that context. LBR routers also serve as data sinks (e.g.
they collect and process data from sensors) and sources (e.g. they
forward instructions to actuators).
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
3.2. Topology
Whilst millions of sensing nodes may very well be deployed in an
urban area, they are likely to be associated with more than one
network. These networks may or may not communicate between one
another. The number of sensing nodes deployed in the urban
environment in support of some applications is expected to be in the
order of 10^2 to 10^7; this is still very large and unprecedented in
current roll-outs.
Deployment of nodes is likely to happen in batches, e.g. boxes of
hundreds to thousands of nodes arrive and are deployed. The location
of the nodes is random within given topological constraints, e.g.
placement along a road, river, or at individual residences.
3.3. Resource Constraints
The nodes are highly resource constrained, i.e. cheap hardware, low
memory and no infinite energy source. Different node powering
mechanisms are available, such as:
1. non-rechargeable battery;
2. rechargeable battery with regular recharging (e.g. sunlight);
3. rechargeable battery with irregular recharging (e.g.
opportunistic energy scavenging);
4. capacitive/inductive energy provision (e.g. passive Radio
Frequency IDentification (RFID));
5. always on (e.g. powered electricity meter).
In the case of a battery powered sensing node, the battery shelf life
is usually in the order of 10 to 15 years, rendering network lifetime
maximization with battery powered nodes beyond this lifespan useless.
The physical and electromagnetic distances between the three key
elements, i.e. sensors, actuators, and routers, can generally be very
large, i.e. from several hundreds of meters to one kilometer. Not
every field node is likely to reach the LBR in a single hop, thereby
requiring suitable routing protocols which manage the information
flow in an energy-efficient manner.
3.4. Link Reliability
The links between the network elements are volatile due to the
following set of non-exclusive effects:
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
1. packet errors due to wireless channel effects;
2. packet errors due to MAC (Medium Access Control) (e.g.
collision);
3. packet errors due to interference from other systems;
4. link unavailability due to network dynamicity; etc.
The wireless channel causes the received power to drop below a given
threshold in a random fashion, thereby causing detection errors in
the receiving node. The underlying effects are path loss, shadowing
and fading.
Since the wireless medium is broadcast in nature, nodes in their
communication radios require suitable medium access control protocols
which are capable of resolving any arising contention. Some
available protocols may not be able to prevent packets of neighboring
nodes from colliding, possibly leading to a high Packet Error Rate
(PER) and causing a link outage.
Furthermore, the outdoor deployment of U-LLNs also has implications
for the interference temperature and hence link reliability and range
if Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) bands are to be used.
For instance, if the 2.4GHz ISM band is used to facilitate
communication between U-LLN nodes, then heavily loaded Wireless Local
Area Network (WLAN) hot-spots may become a detrimental performance
factor, leading to high PER and jeopardizing the functioning of the
U-LLN.
Finally, nodes appearing and disappearing causes dynamics in the
network which can yield link outages and changes of topologies.
4. Urban LLN Application Scenarios
Urban applications represent a special segment of LLNs with its
unique set of requirements. To facilitate the requirements
discussion in Section 6, this section lists a few typical but not
exhaustive deployment problems and usage cases of U-LLN.
4.1. Deployment of Nodes
Contrary to other LLN applications, deployment of nodes is likely to
happen in batches out of a box. Typically, hundreds to thousands of
nodes are being shipped by the manufacturer with pre-programmed
functionalities which are then rolled-out by a service provider or
subcontracted entities. Prior or after roll-out, the network needs
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
to be ramped-up. This initialization phase may include, among
others, allocation of addresses, (possibly hierarchical) roles in the
network, synchronization, determination of schedules, etc.
If initialization is performed prior to roll-out, all nodes are
likely to be in one another's 1-hop radio neighborhood. Pre-
programmed Media Access Control (MAC) and routing protocols may hence
fail to function properly, thereby wasting a large amount of energy.
Whilst the major burden will be on resolving MAC conflicts, any
proposed U-LLN routing protocol needs to cater for such a case. For
instance, 0-configuration and network address allocation needs to be
properly supported, etc.
After roll-out, nodes will have a finite set of one-hop neighbors,
likely of low cardinality (in the order of 5 to 10). However, some
nodes may be deployed in areas where there are hundreds of
neighboring devices. In the resulting topology there may be regions
where many (redundant) paths are possible through the network. Other
regions may be dependent on critical links to achieve connectivity
with the rest of the network. Any proposed LLN routing protocol
ought to support the autonomous self-organization and self-
configuration of the network at lowest possible energy cost [Lu2007],
where autonomy is understood to be the ability of the network to
operate without external influence. The result of such organization
should be that each node or set of nodes is uniquely addressable so
as to facilitate the set up of schedules, etc.
Unless exceptionally needed, broadcast forwarding schemes are not
advised in urban sensor networking environments.
4.2. Association and Disassociation/Disappearance of Nodes
After the initialization phase and possibly some operational time,
new nodes may be injected into the network as well as existing nodes
removed from the network. The former might be because a removed node
is replaced as part of maintenance, or new nodes are added because
more sensors for denser readings/actuations are needed, or because
routing protocols report connectivity problems. The latter might be
because a node's battery is depleted, the node is removed for
maintenance, the node is stolen or accidentally destroyed, etc.
The protocol(s) hence should be able to convey information about
malfunctioning nodes which may affect or jeopardize the overall
routing efficiency, so that self-organization and self-configuration
capabilities of the sensor network might be solicited to facilitate
the appropriate reconfiguration. This information may e.g. include
exact or relative geographical position, etc. The reconfiguration
may include the change of hierarchies, routing paths, packet
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
forwarding schedules, etc. Furthermore, to inform the LBR(s) of the
node's arrival and association with the network as well as freshly
associated nodes about packet forwarding schedules, roles, etc,
appropriate updating mechanisms should be supported.
4.3. Regular Measurement Reporting
The majority of sensing nodes will be configured to report their
readings on a regular basis. The frequency of data sensing and
reporting may be different but is generally expected to be fairly
low, i.e. in the range of once per hour, per day, etc. The ratio
between data sensing and reporting frequencies will determine the
memory and data aggregation capabilities of the nodes. Latency of an
end-to-end delivery and acknowledgements of a successful data
delivery may not be vital as sensing outages can be observed at the
LBR(s) - when, for instance, there is no reading arriving from a
given sensor or cluster of sensors within a day. In this case, a
query can be launched to check upon the state and availability of a
sensing node or sensing cluster.
The protocol(s) hence should be optimized to support a large number
of highly directional unicast flows from the sensing nodes or sensing
clusters towards a LBR, or highly directed multicast or anycast flows
from the nodes towards multiple LBRs.
Route computation and selection may depend on the transmitted
information, the frequency of reporting, the amount of energy
remaining in the nodes, the recharging pattern of energy-scavenged
nodes, etc. For instance, temperature readings could be reported
every hour via one set of battery powered nodes, whereas air quality
indicators are reported only during daytime via nodes powered by
solar energy. More generally, entire routing areas may be avoided
(e.g. at night) but heavily used during the day when nodes are
scavenging from sunlight.
4.4. Queried Measurement Reporting
Occasionally, network external data queries can be launched by one or
several LBRs. For instance, it is desirable to know the level of
pollution at a specific point or along a given road in the urban
environment. The queries' rates of occurrence are not regular but
rather random, where heavy-tail distributions seem appropriate to
model their behavior. Queries do not necessarily need to be reported
back to the same LBR from where the query was launched. Round-trip
times, i.e. from the launch of a query from an LBR towards the
delivery of the measured data to an LBR, are of importance. However,
they are not very stringent where latencies should simply be
sufficiently smaller than typical reporting intervals; for instance,
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
in the order of seconds or minute. The routing protocol(s) should
consider the selection of paths with appropriate (e.g. latency)
metrics to support queried measurement reporting. To facilitate the
query process, U-LLN network devices should support unicast and
multicast routing capabilities.
The same approach is also applicable for schedule update,
provisioning of patches and upgrades, etc. In this case, however,
the provision of acknowledgements and the support of unicast,
multicast, and anycast are of importance.
4.5. Alert Reporting
Rarely, the sensing nodes will measure an event which classifies as
alarm where such a classification is typically done locally within
each node by means of a pre-programmed or prior diffused threshold.
Note that on approaching the alert threshold level, nodes may wish to
change their sensing and reporting cycles. An alarm is likely being
registered by a plurality of sensing nodes where the delivery of a
single alert message with its location of origin suffices in most,
but not all, cases. One example of alert reporting is if the level
of toxic gases rises above a threshold, thereupon the sensing nodes
in the vicinity of this event report the danger. Another example of
alert reporting is when a recycling glass container - equipped with a
sensor measuring its level of occupancy - reports that the container
is full and hence needs to be emptied.
Routes clearly need to be unicast (towards one LBR) or multicast
(towards multiple LBRs). Delays and latencies are important;
however, again, deliveries within seconds should suffice in most of
the cases.
5. Traffic Pattern
Unlike traditional ad hoc networks, the information flow in U-LLNs is
highly directional. There are three main flows to be distinguished:
1. sensed information from the sensing nodes towards one or a subset
of the LBR(s);
2. query requests from the LBR(s) towards the sensing nodes;
3. control information from the LBR(s) towards the actuators.
Some of the flows may need the reverse route for delivering
acknowledgements. Finally, in the future, some direct information
flows between field devices without LBRs may also occur.
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
Sensed data is likely to be highly correlated in space, time and
observed events; an example of the latter is when temperature
increase and humidity decrease as the day commences. Data may be
sensed and delivered at different rates with both rates being
typically fairly low, i.e. in the range of minutes, hours, days, etc.
Data may be delivered regularly according to a schedule or a regular
query; it may also be delivered irregularly after an externally
triggered query; it may also be triggered after a sudden network-
internal event or alert. Schedules may be driven by, for example, a
smart-metering application where data is expected to be delivered
every hour, or an environmental monitoring application where a
battery powered node is expected to report its status at a specific
time once a day. Data delivery may trigger acknowledgements or
maintenance traffic in the reverse direction. The network hence
needs to be able to adjust to the varying activity duty cycles, as
well as to periodic and sporadic traffic. Also, sensed data ought to
be secured and locatable.
Some data delivery may have tight latency requirements, for example
in a case such as a live meter reading for customer service in a
smart-metering application, or in a case where a sensor reading
response must arrive within a certain time in order to be useful.
The network should take into consideration that different application
traffic may require different priorities in the selection of a route
when traversing the network, and that some traffic may be more
sensitive to latency.
An U-LLN should support occasional large scale traffic flows from
sensing nodes to LBRs, such as system-wide alerts. In the example of
an AMI U-LLN this could be in response to events such as a city wide
power outage. In this scenario all powered devices in a large
segment of the network may have lost power and are running off of a
temporary `last gasp' source such as a capacitor or small battery. A
node must be able to send its own alerts toward an LBR while
continuing to forward traffic on behalf of other devices who are also
experiencing an alert condition. The network needs to be able to
manage this sudden large traffic flow. It may be useful for the
routing layer to collaborate with the application layer to perform
data aggregation, in order to reduce the total volume of a large
traffic flow, and make more efficient use of the limited energy
available.
An U-LLN may also need to support efficient large scale messaging to
groups of actuators. For example, an AMI U-LLN supporting a city-
wide demand response system will need to efficiently broadcast demand
response control information to a large subset of actuators in the
system.
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
Some scenarios will require internetworking between the U-LLN and
another network, such as a home network. For example, an AMI
application that implements a demand-response system may need to
forward traffic from a utility, across the U-LLN, into a home
automation network. A typical use case would be to inform a customer
of incentives to reduce demand during peaks, or to automatically
adjust the thermostat of customers who have enrolled in such a demand
management program. Subsequent traffic may be triggered to flow back
through the U-LLN to the utility.
6. Requirements of Urban LLN Applications
Urban low power and lossy network applications have a number of
specific requirements related to the set of operating conditions, as
exemplified in the previous sections.
6.1. Scalability
The large and diverse measurement space of U-LLN nodes - coupled with
the typically large urban areas - will yield extremely large network
sizes. Current urban roll-outs are composed of sometimes more than
one hundred nodes; future roll-outs, however, may easily reach
numbers in the tens of thousands to millions. One of the utmost
important LLN routing protocol design criteria is hence scalability.
The routing protocol(s) MUST be capable of supporting the
organization of a large number of sensing nodes into regions
containing on the order of 10^2 to 10^4 sensing nodes each.
The routing protocol(s) MUST be scalable so as to accommodate a very
large and increasing number of nodes without deteriorating selected
performance parameters below configurable thresholds. The routing
protocols(s) SHOULD support the organization of a large number of
nodes into regions of configurable size.
6.2. Parameter Constrained Routing
Batteries in some nodes may deplete quicker than in others; the
existence of one node for the maintenance of a routing path may not
be as important as of another node; the battery scavenging methods
may recharge the battery at regular or irregular intervals; some
nodes may have a constant power source; some nodes may have a larger
memory and are hence be able to store more neighborhood information;
some nodes may have a stronger CPU and are hence able to perform more
sophisticated data aggregation methods; etc.
To this end, the routing protocol(s) MUST support parameter
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
constrained routing, where examples of such parameters (CPU, memory
size, battery level, etc.) have been given in the previous paragraph.
Routing within urban sensor networks SHOULD require the U-LLN nodes
to dynamically compute, select and install different paths towards a
same destination, depending on the nature of the traffic. From this
perspective, such nodes SHOULD inspect the contents of traffic
payload for making routing and forwarding decisions: for example, the
analysis of traffic payload should encourage the enforcement of
forwarding policies based upon aggregation capabilities for the sake
of efficiency.
6.3. Support of Autonomous and Alien Configuration
With the large number of nodes, manually configuring and
troubleshooting each node is not efficient. The scale and the large
number of possible topologies that may be encountered in the U-LLN
encourages the development of automated management capabilities that
may (partly) rely upon self-organizing techniques. The network is
expected to self-organize and self-configure according to some prior
defined rules and protocols, as well as to support externally
triggered configurations (for instance through a commissioning tool
which may facilitate the organization of the network at a minimum
energy cost).
To this end, the routing protocol(s) MUST provide a set of features
including 0-configuration at network ramp-up, (network-internal)
self- organization and configuration due to topological changes, and
the ability to support (network-external) patches and configuration
updates. For the latter, the protocol(s) MUST support multi- and
any-cast addressing. The protocol(s) SHOULD also support the
formation and identification of groups of field devices in the
network.
The routing protocol(s) SHOULD be able to dynamically adapt, e.g.
through the application of appropriate routing metrics, to ever-
changing conditions of communication (possible degradation of QoS,
variable nature of the traffic (real time vs. non real time, sensed
data vs. alerts), node mobility, a combination thereof, etc.)
The routing protocol(s) SHOULD be able to dynamically compute, select
and possibly optimize the (multiple) path(s) that will be used by the
participating devices to forward the traffic towards the actuators
and/or a LBR according to the service-specific and traffic-specific
QoS, traffic engineering and routing security policies that will have
to be enforced at the scale of a routing domain (that is, a set of
networking devices administered by a globally unique entity), or a
region of such domain (e.g. a metropolitan area composed of clusters
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
of sensors).
6.4. Support of Highly Directed Information Flows
The reporting of the data readings by a large amount of spatially
dispersed nodes towards a few LBRs will lead to highly directed
information flows. For instance, a suitable addressing scheme can be
devised which facilitates the data flow. Also, as one gets closer to
the LBR, the traffic concentration increases which may lead to high
load imbalances in node usage.
To this end, the routing protocol(s) SHOULD support and utilize the
fact of a large number of highly directed traffic flows to facilitate
scalability and parameter constrained routing.
The routing protocol MUST be able to accommodate traffic bursts by
dynamically computing and selecting multiple paths towards the same
destination.
6.5. Support of Multicast, Anycast, and Implementation of Groupcast
Some urban sensing systems require low-level addressing of a group of
nodes in the same subnet, or for a node representative of a group of
nodes, without any prior creation of multicast groups, simply
carrying a list of recipients in the subnet
[I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs].
Routing protocols activated in urban sensor networks MUST support
unicast (traffic is sent to a single field device), multicast
(traffic is sent to a set of devices that are subscribed to the same
multicast group), and anycast (where multiple field devices are
configured to accept traffic sent on a single IP anycast address)
transmission schemes. Routing protocols activated in urban sensor
networks SHOULD accommodate "groupcast" forwarding schemes, where
traffic is sent to a set of devices that implicitly belong to the
same group/cast.
The support of unicast, groupcast, multicast, and anycast also has an
implication on the addressing scheme but is beyond the scope of this
document that focuses on the routing requirements aspects.
Note: with IP multicast, signaling mechanisms are used by a receiver
to join a group and the sender does not know the receivers of the
group. What is required is the ability to address a group of
receivers known by the sender even if the receivers do not need to
know that they have been grouped by the sender (since requesting each
individual node to join a multicast group would be very energy-
consuming).
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
The network SHOULD support internetworking when identical protocols
are used, while giving attention to routing security implications of
interfacing, for example, a home network with a utility U-LLN. The
network may support the ability to interact with another network
using a different protocol, for example by supporting route
redistribution.
6.6. Network Dynamicity
Although mobility is assumed to be low in urban LLNs, network
dynamicity due to node association, disassociation and disappearance,
as well as long-term link perturbations is not negligible. This in
turn impacts reorganization and reconfiguration convergence as well
as routing protocol convergence.
To this end, local network dynamics SHOULD NOT impact the entire
network to be re-organized or re-reconfigured; however, the network
SHOULD be locally optimized to cater for the encountered changes.
The routing protocol(s) SHOULD support appropriate mechanisms in
order to be informed of the association, disassociation, and
disappearance of nodes. The routing protocol(s) SHOULD support
appropriate updating mechanisms in order to be informed of changes in
connectivity. The routing protocol(s) SHOULD use this information to
initiate protocol specific mechanisms for reorganization and
reconfiguration as necessary to maintain overall routing efficiency.
Convergence and route establishment times SHOULD be significantly
lower than the smallest reporting interval.
Differentiation SHOULD be made between node disappearance, where the
node disappears without prior notification, and user or node-
initiated disassociation ("phased-out"), where the node has enough
time to inform the network about its pending removal.
6.7. Latency
With the exception of alert reporting solutions and to a certain
extent queried reporting, U-LLNs are delay tolerant as long as the
information arrives within a fraction of the smallest reporting
interval, e.g. a few seconds if reporting is done every 4 hours.
The routing protocol(s) SHOULD also support the ability to route
according to different metrics (one of which could e.g. be latency).
7. Security Considerations
As every network, U-LLNs are exposed to routing security threats that
need to be addressed. The wireless and distributed nature of these
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
networks increases the spectrum of potential routing security
threats. This is further amplified by the resource constraints of
the nodes, thereby preventing resource intensive routing security
approaches from being deployed. A viable routing security approach
SHOULD be sufficiently lightweight that it may be implemented across
all nodes in a U-LLN. These issues require special attention during
the design process, so as to facilitate a commercially attractive
deployment.
A secure communication in a wireless network encompasses three main
elements, i.e. confidentiality (encryption of data), integrity
(correctness of data), and authentication (legitimacy of data).
Authentication can e.g. be violated if external sources insert
incorrect data packets; integrity can e.g. be violated if nodes start
to break down and hence commence measuring and relaying data
incorrectly. Nonetheless, some sensor readings as well as the
actuator control signals need to be confidential.
The U-LLN network MUST deny all routing services to any node who has
not been authenticated to the U-LLN and authorized for the use of
routing services.
The U-LLN MUST be protected against attempts to inject false or
modified packets. For example, an attacker SHOULD be prevented from
manipulating or disabling the routing function by compromising
routing update messages. Moreover, it SHOULD NOT be possible to
coerce the network into routing packets which have been modified in
transit. To this end the routing protocol(s) MUST support message
integrity.
Further example routing security issues which may arise are the
abnormal behavior of nodes which exhibit an egoistic conduct, such as
not obeying network rules, or forwarding no or false packets. Other
important issues may arise in the context of Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks, malicious address space allocations, advertisement of
variable addresses, a wrong neighborhood, external attacks aimed at
injecting dummy traffic to drain the network power, etc.
The properties of self-configuration and self-organization which are
desirable in a U-LLN introduce additional routing security
considerations. Mechanisms MUST be in place to deny any rogue node
which attempts to take advantage of self-configuration and self-
organization procedures. Such attacks may attempt, for example, to
cause denial of service, drain the energy of power constrained
devices, or to hijack the routing mechanism. A node MUST
authenticate itself to a trusted node that is already associated with
the U-LLN before any self-configuration or self-organization is
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
allowed to proceed. A node that has already authenticated and
associated with the U-LLN MUST deny, to the maximum extent possible,
the allocation of resources to any unauthenticated peer. The routing
protocol(s) MUST deny service to any node which has not clearly
established trust with the U-LLN.
Consideration SHOULD be given to cases where the U-LLN may interface
with other networks such as a home network. The U-LLN SHOULD NOT
interface with any external network which has not established trust.
The U-LLN SHOULD be capable of limiting the resources granted in
support of an external network so as not to be vulnerable to denial
of service.
With low computation power and scarce energy resources, U-LLNs nodes
may not be able to resist any attack from high-power malicious nodes
(e.g. laptops and strong radios). However, the amount of damage
generated to the whole network SHOULD be commensurate with the number
of nodes physically compromised. For example, an intruder taking
control over a single node SHOULD not have total access to, or be
able to completely deny service to the whole network.
In general, the routing protocol(s) SHOULD support the implementation
of routing security best practices across the U-LLN. Such an
implementation ought to include defense against, for example,
eavesdropping, replay, message insertion, modification, and man-in-
the-middle attacks.
The choice of the routing security solutions will have an impact onto
routing protocol(s). To this end, routing protocol(s) proposed in
the context of U-LLNs MUST support integrity measures and SHOULD
support confidentiality (routing security) measures.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
9. Acknowledgements
The in-depth feedback of JP Vasseur, Cisco, Jonathan Hui, Arch Rock,
and Iain Calder is greatly appreciated.
10. References
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs]
Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation
Routing Requirement in Low Power and Lossy Networks",
draft-ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs-03 (work in progress),
September 2008.
[I-D.ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs]
Networks, D., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney,
"Industrial Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs-01 (work in
progress), July 2008.
[I-D.martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs]
Martocci, J., Riou, N., Mil, P., and W. Vermeylen,
"Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and
Lossy Networks",
draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01 (work in
progress), October 2008.
[I-D.vasseur-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks", draft-vasseur-roll-terminology-02 (work in
progress), September 2008.
[Lu2007] J.L. Lu, F. Valois, D. Barthel, M. Dohler, "FISCO: A Fully
Integrated Scheme of Self-Configuration and Self-
Organization for WSN", IEEE WCNC 2007, Hong Kong, China,
11-15 March 2007, pp. 3370-3375.
[RFC1546] Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host
Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Mischa Dohler (editor)
CTTC
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, Av. Canal Olimpic S/N
08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona
Spain
Email: mischa.dohler@cttc.es
Thomas Watteyne (editor)
CITI-Lab, INSA-Lyon, INRIA A4RES
21 avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Lyon
France
Email: thomas.watteyne@ieee.org
Tim Winter (editor)
Eka Systems
20201 Century Blvd. Suite 250
Germantown, MD 20874
USA
Email: tim.winter@ekasystems.com
Dominique Barthel (editor)
France Telecom R&D
28 Chemin du Vieux Chene
38243 Meylan Cedex
France
Email: Dominique.Barthel@orange-ftgroup.com
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom R&D
4 rue du Clos Courtel BP 91226
35512 Cesson Sevigne
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange-ftgroup.com
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
Giyyarpuram Madhusudan
France Telecom R&D
28 Chemin du Vieux Chene
38243 Meylan Cedex
France
Email: giyyarpuram.madhusudan@orange-ftgroup.com
Gabriel Chegaray
France Telecom R&D
28 Chemin du Vieux Chene
38243 Meylan Cedex
France
Email: gabriel.chegaray@orange-ftgroup.com
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-urban-routing-reqs-02 October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Dohler, et al. Expires April 23, 2009 [Page 22]
