ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Sahoo
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Wu
Expires: August 8, 2018 Huawei
February 4, 2018
RPL Observations
draft-rahul-roll-rpl-observations-00
Abstract
This document describes RPL protocol design issues, various
observations and possible consequences of the design and
implementation choices. Also mentioned are implementation notes for
the developers to be used in specific contexts.
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 August 8, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(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.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Managing persistent variables across node reboots . . . . . . 3
2.1. Persistent storage and RPL state information . . . . . . 3
2.2. Lollipop Counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. RPL State variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.1. DODAG Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2. DTSN field in DIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.3. PathSequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. State variables update frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. DTSN increment in storing MOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DAO retransmission and use of DAO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Handling resource unavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Traffic Types observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. RPL under-specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector routing scheme
designed for LLNs (Low Power and Lossy Networks). RPL enables the
network to be formed as a DODAG and supports storing mode and non-
storing mode of operations. Non-storing mode allows reduced memory
resource usage on the nodes by allowing non-BR nodes to operate
without managing a routing table and involves use of source routing
by the 6LBR to direct the traffic along a specific path. In storing
mode of operation intermediate routers maintain routing tables.
This work aims to highlight various issues with RPL which makes it
difficult to handle certain scenarios. This work will highlight such
issues in context to RPL's mode of operations (storing versus non-
storing). There are cases where RPL does not provide clear rules and
implementations have to make their choices hindering interoperability
and performance.
[I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences] provides some interesting points.
Some sections in this draft may overlap with some observations in
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
[clausen], but this is been done to further extend some scenarios or
observations. It is highly encouraged that readers should also visit
[I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences] for other insights. Regardless,
this draft is self-sufficient in a way that it does not expect to
have read [clausen-draft].
1.1. Requirements Language and 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
NS-MOP = RPL Non-storing Mode of Operation
S-MOP = RPL Storing Mode of Operation
This document uses terminology described in [RFC6550] and [RFC6775].
2. Managing persistent variables across node reboots
2.1. Persistent storage and RPL state information
Devices are required to be functional for several years without
manual maintanence. Usually battery power consumption is considered
key for operating the devices for several (tens of) years. But apart
from battery, flash memory endurance may prove to be a lifetime
bottleneck in constrained networks. Endurance is defined as maximum
number of erase-write cycles that a NAND/NOR cell can undergo before
losing its 'gauranteed' write operation. In some cases (cheaper
NAND-MLC/TLC), the endurance can be as less as 2K cycles. Thus for
e.g. if a given cell is written 5 times a day, that NAND-flash cell
assuming an endurance of 10K cycles may last for less than 6 years.
In a star topology, the amount of persistent data write done by
network protocols is very limited. But ad-hoc networks employing
routing protocols such as RPL assume certain state information to be
retained across node reboots. In case of IoT devices this storage is
mostly floating gate based NAND/NOR based flash memory. The impact
of loss of this state information differs depending upon the type
(6LN/6LR/6LBR) of the node.
2.2. Lollipop Counters
[RFC6550] Section 7.2. explains sequence counter operation defining
lollipop [Perlman83] style counters. Lollipop counters specify
mechanism in which even if the counter value wraps, the algorithm
would be able to tell whether the received value is the latest or
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
not. This mechanism also helps in "some cases" to recover from node
reboot, but is not foolproof.
Consider an e.g. where Node A boots up and initialises the seqcnt to
240 as recommended in [RFC6550]. Node A communicates to Node B using
this seqcnt and node B uses this seqcnt to determine whether the
information node A sent in the packet is latest. Now lets assume,
the counter value reaches 250 after some operations on Node A, and
node B keeps receiving updated seqcnt from node A. Now consider that
node A reboots, and since it reinitializes the seqcnt value to 240
and sends the information to node B (who has seqcnt of 250 stored on
behalf of node A). As per section 7.2. of [RFC6550], when node B
receives this packet it will consider the information to be old
(since 240 < 250).
+-----+-----+----------+
| A | B | Output |
+-----+-----+----------+
| 240 | 240 | A<B, old |
| 240 | 241 | A<B, old |
| 240 | :: | A<B, old |
| 240 | 256 | A<B, old |
| 240 | 0 | A<B, new |
| 240 | 1 | A>B, new |
| 240 | :: | A>B, new |
| 240 | 127 | A>B, new |
+-----+-----+----------+
Default values for lollipop counters considered from [RFC6550]
Section 7.2.
Table 1: Example lollipop counter operation
Based on this figure, there is dead zone (240 to 0) in which if A
operates after reboot then the seqcnt will always be considered
smaller. Thus node A needs to maintain the seqcnt in persistent
storage and reuse this on reboot.
2.3. RPL State variables
The impact of loss of RPL state information differs depending upon
the node type (6LN/6LR/6LBR). Following sections explain different
state variables and the impact in case this information is lost on
reboot.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
2.3.1. DODAG Version
The tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID, DODAGVersionNumber) uniquely
identifies a DODAG Version. DODAGVersionNumber is incremented
everytime a global repair is initiated for the instance (global or
local). A node receiving an older DODAGVersionNumber will ignore the
DIO message assuming it to be from old DODAG version. Thus a 6LBR
node (and 6LR node in case of local DODAG) needs to maintain the
DODAGVersionNumber in the persistent storage, so as to be available
on reboot. In case the 6LBR could not use the latest
DODAGVersionNumber the implication are that it won't be able to
recover/re-establish the routing table.
2.3.2. DTSN field in DIO
DTSN (Destination advertisement Trigger Sequence Number) is a DIO
message field used as part of procedure to maintain Downward routes.
A 6LBR/6LR node may increment a DTSN in case it requires the
downstream nodes to send DAO and thus update downward routes on the
6LBR/6LR node. In case of RPL NS-MOP, only the 6LBR maintains the
downward routes and thus controls this field update. In case of
S-MOP, 6LRs additionally keep downward routes and thus control this
field update.
In S-MOP, when a 6LR node switches parent it may have to issue a DIO
with incremented DTSN to trigger downstream child nodes to send DAO
so that the downward routes are established in all parent/ancestor
set. Thus in S-MOP, the frequency of DTSN update might be relatively
high (given the node density and hysteresis set by objective function
to switch parent).
2.3.3. PathSequence
PathSequence is part of RPL Transit Option, and associated with RPL
Target option. A node whichs owns a target address can associate a
PathSequence in the DAO message to denote freshness of the target
information. This is especially useful when a node uses multiple
paths or multiple parents to advertise its reachability.
Loss of PathSequence information maintained on the target node can
result in routing adjacencies been lost on 6LRs/6LBR/6BBR.
2.4. State variables update frequency
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------+
| State variable | Update frequency | Impacts node type |
+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------+
| DODAGVersionNumber | Low | 6LBR, 6LR(local DODAG) |
| DTSN | High(SM),Low(NSM) | 6LBR, 6LR |
| PathSequence | High(SM),Low(NSM) | 6LR, 6LN |
+--------------------+-------------------+------------------------+
Low=<5 per day, High=>5 per day; SM=Storing MOP, NSM=Non-Storing MOP
Table 2: RPL State variables
2.5. Recommendations
It is necessary that RPL avoids using persistent storage as far as
possible. Ideally, extensions to RPL should consider this as a
design requirement especially for 6LR and 6LN nodes. DTSN and
PathSequence are the primary state variables which have major impact.
2.6. Implementation Notes
An implementation should use a random DAOSequence number on reboot so
as to avoid a risk of reusing the same DAOSequence on reboot. A
parent node will not respond with a DAO-ACK in case it sees a DAO
with the same previous DAOSequence.
Write-Before-Use: The state information should be written to the
flash before using it in the messaging. If it is done the other way,
then the chances are that the node power downs before writing to the
persistent storage.
3. DTSN increment in storing MOP
DTSN increment has major impact on the overall RPL control traffic
and on the efficiency of downstream route update. DTSN is sent as
part of DIO message and signals the downstream nodes to trigger the
target advertisement. The 6LR needs to decide when to update the
DTSN and usually it should do it in a conservative way. The DTSN
update mechanism determines how soon the downward routes are
established along the new path. RPL specifications does not provide
any clear mechansim on how the DTSN update should happen in case of
storing mode.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
(6LBR)
|
|
|
(A)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(B) -(C)
| / |
| / |
| / |
(D)- (E)
\ ;
\ ;
\ ;
(F)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(G) (H)
Figure 1: Sample topology
Consider example topology shown in figure Figure 1, assume that node
D switches the parent from node B to C. Ideally the downstream nodes
D and its sub-childs should send their target advertisement to the
new path via node C. To achieve this result in a efficient way is a
challenge. Incrementing DTSN is the only way to trigger the DAO on
downstream nodes. But this trigger should be sent not only on the
first hop but to all the grand-child nodes. Thus DTSN has to be
incremented in the complete sub-DODAG rooted at node D thus resulting
in DIO/DAO storm along the sub-DODAG. This is specifically a big
issue in high density networks where the metric deteoration might
happen transiently even though the signal strength is good.
The primary implementation issue is whether a child node increment
its own DTSN when it receives DTSN update from its parent node? This
would result in DAO-updates in the sub-DODAG, thus the cost could be
very high. If not incremented it may result in serious loss of
connectivity for nodes in the sub-DODAG.
4. DAO retransmission and use of DAO-ACK
[RFC6550] has an optional DAO-ACK mechanism using which an upstream
parent confirms the reception of a DAO from the downstream child. In
case of storing mode, the DAO is addressed to the immediate hop
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
upstream parent resulting in DAO-ACK from the parent. There are two
implementations possible:
(1) A parent responds with a DAO-ACK immedetialy after receiving the
DAO.
(2) A node waits for the upstream parent to send DAO-ACK to respond
with a DAO-ACK downstream. This may not be feasible to use on
constrained devices because it requires additional state
information and timers to be handled on behalf of multiple
downstream nodes whose DAO is in transit.
Following scenarios do not have clear handling in the specs:
(1) What happens if the DAO-ACK for the target is lost at the
ancestor node link?
(2) What happens if the DAO-ACK with Status!=0 is responded by
ancestor node?
(3) Is there any way for the target node to know that the DAO it
sent has reached the 6LBR successfully?
Note that any of these inefficiencies are not present in case of
NSMOP in which the DAO is addressed directly to the 6LBR.
5. Handling resource unavailability
The nodes in the constrained networks have to maintain various
records such as neighbor cache entries and routing entries on behalf
of other targets to facilitate packet forwarding. Because of the
constrained nature of the devices the memory available may be very
limited and thus the path selection algorithm may have to take into
consideration such resource constraints as well.
RPL currently does not have any mechanism to advertise such resource
indicator metrics. The primary tables associated with RPL are
routing table and the neighbor cache. Even though neighbor cache is
not directly linked with RPL protocol, the maintenance of routing
adjacencies results in updates to neigbor cache.
Following needs to be handled by the specs:
Is it possible to know that an upstream parent/ancestor cannot
hold enough routing entries and thus this path should not be used?
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
Is it possible to know that an upstream parent cannot hold any
more neighbor cache entry and thus this upstream parent should not
be used?
6. Traffic Types observations
RPL is more suited towards MP2P (multi-point to point) traffic, the
central point here usually is a grounded root/6LBR node. [RFC6997]
allows establishing P2P paths within the DODAG. There are situations
where a MP2P network needs to be established within the DODAG. For
e.g. there could be multiple switches connecting the same light bulb.
Currently to achieve this, every switch needs to establish a P2P path
to the bulb. In cases where the cardinality of nodes connecting to
the same node is high the cost of establishing P2P paths could be
very high. RPL allows 'floating' DODAG to be created but the
specification defines it to be used under other circumstances. To
quote [RFC6550],
"A grounded DODAG offers connectivity to hosts that are required for
satisfying the application-defined goal. ___A floating DODAG is not
expected to satisfy the goal; in most cases, it only provides routes
to nodes within the DODAG. Floating DODAGs may be used, for example,
to preserve interconnectivity during repair.___"
Thus it is not clear whether floating DODAGs can be put to use for
establishing MP2P paths within the DODAG.
7. RPL under-specification
(a) PathSequence: Is it mandatory to use PathSequence in DAO Transit
container? RPL mentions that a 6LR/6LBR hosting the routing
entry on behalf of target node should refresh the lifetime on
reception of a new Path Sequence. But RPL does not necessarily
mandate use of Path Sequence. Most of the open source
implementation [RIOT] [CONTIKI] currently do not issue Path
Sequence in the DAO message.
(b) Target Container aggregation in DAO: RPL allows multiple targets
to be aggregated in a single DAO message and has introduced a
notion of DelayDAO using which a 6LR node could delay its DAO to
enable such aggregation. But RPL does not have clear text on
handling of aggregated DAOs and thus it hinders
interoperability.
(c) DTSN Update: RPL does not clearly define in which cases DTSN
should be updated in case of storing mode of operation. More
details for this are presented in Section 3.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
8. Acknowledgements
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
This is an information draft and does add any changes to the existing
specifications.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences]
Clausen, T., Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Herberg, U., and Y.
Igarashi, "Observations on RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low power and Lossy Networks", draft-clausen-lln-rpl-
experiences-10 (work in progress), January 2018.
[Perlman83]
Perlman, R., "Fault-Tolerant Broadcast of Routing
Information", North-Holland Computer Networks, Vol.7,
December 1983.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
Huawei
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Rabi Narayan Sahoo
Huawei
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rabinarayans@huawei.com
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RPL Observations February 2018
Yuefeng Wu
Huawei
No.101, Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District,
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Phone: +86-15251896569
Email: wuyuefeng@huawei.com
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 8, 2018 [Page 12]