< draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-03.txt   draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-04.txt >
lpwan S. Farrell, Ed. lpwan S. Farrell, Ed.
Internet-Draft Trinity College Dublin Internet-Draft Trinity College Dublin
Intended status: Informational October 31, 2016 Intended status: Informational October 31, 2016
Expires: May 4, 2017 Expires: May 4, 2017
LPWAN Overview LPWAN Overview
draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-03 draft-farrell-lpwan-overview-04
Abstract Abstract
Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are wireless technologies with
characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly characteristics such as large coverage areas, low bandwidth, possibly
very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery very small packet and application layer data sizes and long battery
life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of life operation. This memo is an informational overview of the set of
LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that LPWAN technologies being considered in the IETF and of the gaps that
exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running
IP in LPWANs. IP in LPWANs.
skipping to change at page 2, line 9 skipping to change at page 2, line 9
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Common Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. LPWAN Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LPWAN Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. LoRaWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. LoRaWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.2.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.2.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3. SIGFOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. SIGFOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.4. Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) . . . . . . . . 19
3.4. Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) . . . . . . . . 21 2.4.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.1. Provenance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.4.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.2. Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. Generic Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. Generic Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.1. Naive application of IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1. IPv6 and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2. 6LoWPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.1. Unicast and Multicast mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2.1. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. 6LoWPAN and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.1. 6LoWPAN Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2.3. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2.4. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.3. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3. 6lo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.4. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4. 6tisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3. 6lo and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.5. RoHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4. 6tisch and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.6. ROLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.5. RoHC and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.7. CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.6. ROLL and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.8. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.7. CoRE and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.9. DNS and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.8. Security and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.9. Mobility and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.9.1. NEMO and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.10. DNS and LPWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[[Editor comments/queries are in double square brackets like this.]] [[Ed: Editor comments/queries are in double square brackets like
this. Note that the eventual fate of this draft is a topic for the
WG to consider - it might end up as a useful RFC, or it might be best
maintained as a draft only until its utility has dissapated. FWIW,
the editor doesn't mind what outcome the WG choose.]]
This document provides background material and an overview of the This document provides background material and an overview of the
technologies being considered in the IETF's Low Power Wide-Area technologies being considered in the IETF's Low Power Wide-Area
Networking (LPWAN) working group. We also provide a gap analysis Networking (LPWAN) working group. We also provide a gap analysis
between the needs of these technologies and currently available IETF between the needs of these technologies and currently available IETF
specifications. specifications.
This document is largely the work of the people listed in Section 8.
Discussion of this document should take place on the lp-wan@ietf.org
list.
[[Editor's note: the eventual fate of this draft is a topic for the
WG to consider - it might end up as a useful RFC, or it might be best
maintained as a draft only until its utility has dissapated. FWIW,
the editor doesn't mind what outcome the WG choose.]]
2. Common Concerns
[[Editors note: We may want a section like this that describes some
cross-cutting issues, e.g. duty-cycles, some of the ISM band
restrictions. This isn't intended to be a problem statement nor a
set of requirements but just to describe some issues that affect more
than one of the LPWAN technologies. Such a section might be better
before or after Section 3, will see when text's added there. There
is some text for this in the current "gaps" draft.]]
Most technologies in this space aim for similar goals of supporting Most technologies in this space aim for similar goals of supporting
large numbers of low-cost, low-throughput devices at very low-cost large numbers of low-cost, low-throughput devices at very low-cost
and with very-low power consumption, so that even battery-powered and with very-low power consumption, so that even battery-powered
devices can be deployed for years. And as the name implies, coverage devices can be deployed for years. And as the name implies, coverage
of large areas is also a common goal. There are some differences of large areas is also a common goal. So, by and large, the
however, e.g., the Narrowband IoT specifications Section 3.2 also aim different technologies aim for deployment in very similar
for increased indoor coverage. However, by and large, the different circumstances.
technologies aim for deployment in very similar circumstances.
Existing pilot deployments have shown huge potential and created much Existing pilot deployments have shown huge potential and created much
industrial interest in these technolgies. As of today, essentially industrial interest in these technolgies. As of today, [[Ed: with
no LPWAN devices have IP capabilities. Connecting LPWANs to the the possible exception of Wi-SUN devices?]] essentially no LPWAN
Internet would provide significant benefits to these networks in devices have IP capabilities. Connecting LPWANs to the Internet
terms of interoperability, application deployment, and management, would provide significant benefits to these networks in terms of
among others. The goal of the LPWAN WG is to adapt IETF defined interoperability, application deployment, and management, among
protocols, addressing schemes and naming to this particular others. The goal of the LPWAN WG is to adapt IETF defined protocols,
constrained environment. addressing schemes and naming to this particular constrained
environment.
3. LPWAN Technologies This document is largely the work of the people listed in Section 7.
Discussion of this document should take place on the lp-wan@ietf.org
list.
2. LPWAN Technologies
This section provides an overview of the set of LPWAN technologies This section provides an overview of the set of LPWAN technologies
that are being considered in the LPWAN working group. The text for that are being considered in the LPWAN working group. The text for
each was mainly contributed by proponents of each technology. each was mainly contributed by proponents of each technology.
Note that this text is not intended to be normative in any sesne, but Note that this text is not intended to be normative in any sesne, but
simply to help the reader in finding the relevant layer 2 simply to help the reader in finding the relevant layer 2
specifications and in understanding how those integrate with IETF- specifications and in understanding how those integrate with IETF-
defined technologies. Similarly, there is no attempt here to set out defined technologies. Similarly, there is no attempt here to set out
the pros and cons of the relevant technologies. [[Editor: I assume the pros and cons of the relevant technologies. [[Ed: I assume
that's the right target here. Please comment if you disagree.]] that's the right target here. Please comment if you disagree.]]
[[Editor's note: the goal here is 2-3 pages per technology. If [[Ed: the goal here is 2-3 pages per technology. If there's much
there's much more needed then we could add appendices I guess more needed then we could add appendices I guess depending on what
depending on what text the WG find useful to include.]] text the WG find useful to include.]]
3.1. LoRaWAN [[Ed: A lot of the radio frequency related details below could
disappear I think - for the purposes of this WG, I think a lot of
that is extraneous detail. Haven't yet done that though, in case I'm
missing something. It might also further imbalance the level of
description of the different technologies, to the extent that the WG
care explicitly about that.]]
[[Text here is from [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview] And yes, this 2.1. LoRaWAN
section is too long right now. Will shorten.]]
3.1.1. Provenance and Documents [[Ed: Text here is from [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]]]
2.1.1. Provenance and Documents
LoRaWAN is a wireless technology for long-range low-power low-data- LoRaWAN is a wireless technology for long-range low-power low-data-
rate applications developed by the LoRa Alliance, a membership rate applications developed by the LoRa Alliance, a membership
consortium. <https://www.lora-alliance.org/> This draft is based on consortium. <https://www.lora-alliance.org/> This draft is based on
version 1.0.2 [LoRaSpec] of the LoRa specification. (Note that version 1.0.2 [LoRaSpec] of the LoRa specification. (Version 1.0.2
version 1.0.2 is expected to be published in a few weeks. We will is expected to be published in a few weeks. We will wmen that has
update this draft when that has happened. For now, version 1.0 is happened. For now, version 1.0 is available at [LoRaSpec1.0])
available at [LoRaSpec1.0])
3.1.2. Characteristics 2.1.2. Characteristics
In LoRaWAN networks, end-device transmissions may be received at In LoRaWAN networks, end-device transmissions may be received at
multiple gateways, so during nominal operation a network server may multiple gateways, so during nominal operation a network server may
see multiple instances of the same uplink message from an end-device. see multiple instances of the same uplink message from an end-device.
The LoRaWAN network infrastructure manages the data rate and RF The LoRaWAN network infrastructure manages the data rate and RF
output power for each end-device individually by means of an adaptive output power for each end-device individually by means of an adaptive
data rate (ADR) scheme. End-devices may transmit on any channel data rate (ADR) scheme. End-devices may transmit on any channel
allowed by local regulation at any time, using any of the currently allowed by local regulation at any time, using any of the currently
available data rates. available data rates.
LoRaWAN networks are typically organized in a star-of-stars topology LoRaWAN networks are typically organized in a star-of-stars topology
in which gateways relay messages between end-devices and a central in which gateways relay messages between end-devices and a central
"network server" in the backend. Gateways are connected to the "network server" in the backend. Gateways are connected to the
network server via IP links while end-devices use single-hop LoRaWAN network server via IP links while end-devices use single-hop LoRaWAN
communication that can be received at one or more gateways. All communication that can be received at one or more gateways. All
communication is generally bi-directional, although uplink communication is generally bi-directional, although uplink
communication from end-devices to the network server are favoured in communication from end-devices to the network server are favoured in
terms of overall bandwidth availability. terms of overall bandwidth availability.
This section introduces some LoRaWAN terms. Figure 1 shows the Figure 1 shows the entities involved in a LoRaWAN network.
entities involved in a LoRaWAN network.
+----------+ +----------+
|End-device| * * * |End-device| * * *
+----------+ * +---------+ +----------+ * +---------+
* | Gateway +---+ * | Gateway +---+
+----------+ * +---------+ | +---------+ +----------+ * +---------+ | +---------+
|End-device| * * * +---+ Network +--- Application |End-device| * * * +---+ Network +--- Application
+----------+ * | | Server | +----------+ * | | Server |
* +---------+ | +---------+ * +---------+ | +---------+
+----------+ * | Gateway +---+ +----------+ * | Gateway +---+
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
o Downlink message: refers to communications from network server or o Downlink message: refers to communications from network server or
application via one gateway to a single end-device or a group of application via one gateway to a single end-device or a group of
end-devices (considering multicasting). end-devices (considering multicasting).
o Application: refers to application layer code both on the end- o Application: refers to application layer code both on the end-
device and running "behind" the network server. For LoRaWAN, device and running "behind" the network server. For LoRaWAN,
there will generally only be one application running on most end- there will generally only be one application running on most end-
devices. Interfaces between the network server and application devices. Interfaces between the network server and application
are not further described here. are not further described here.
o Classes A, B and C define different device capabilities and modes
of operation for end-devices. End-devices can transmit uplink
messages at any time in any mode of operation (so long as e.g.,
ISM band restrictions are honoured). An end-device in Class A can
only receive downlink messages at predetermined timeslots after
each uplink message transmission. Class B allows the end-device
to receive downlink messages at periodically scheduled timeslots.
Class C allows receipt of downlink messages at anytime. Class
selection is based on the end-devices' application use case and
its power supply. (While Classes B and C are not further
described here, readers may have seen those terms elsewhere so we
include them for clarity.)
LoRaWAN radios make use of ISM bands, for example, 433MHz and 868MHz LoRaWAN radios make use of ISM bands, for example, 433MHz and 868MHz
within the European Union and 915MHz in the Americas. within the European Union and 915MHz in the Americas.
The end-device changes channel in a pseudo-random fashion for every The end-device changes channel in a pseudo-random fashion for every
transmission to help make the system more robust to interference and/ transmission to help make the system more robust to interference and/
or to conform to local regulations. or to conform to local regulations.
As with other LPWAN radio technologies, LoRaWAN end-devices respect
the frequency, power and maximum transmit duty cycle requirements for
the sub-band imposed by local regulators. In most cases, this means
an end-device is only transmitting for 1% of the time, as specified
by ISM band regulations. And in some cases the LoRaWAN specification
calls for end-devices to transmit less often than is called for by
the ISM band regulations in order to avoid congestion.
Figure 2 below shows that after a transmission slot a Class A device Figure 2 below shows that after a transmission slot a Class A device
turns on its receiver for two short receive windows that are offset turns on its receiver for two short receive windows that are offset
from the end of the transmission window. The frequencies and data from the end of the transmission window. End-devices can only
rate chosen for the first of these receive windows depends on those transmit a subsequent uplink frame after the end of the associated
used for the transmit window. The frequency and data-rate for the receive windows. When a device joins a LoRaWAN network, there are
second receive window are configurable. If a downlink message similar timeouts on parts of that process.
preamble is detected during a receive window, then the end-device
keeps the radio on in order to receive the frame.
End-devices can only transmit a subsequent uplink frame after the end
of the associated receive windows. When a device joins a LoRaWAN
network, there are similar timeouts on parts of that process.
|----------------------------| |--------| |--------| |----------------------------| |--------| |--------|
| Tx | | Rx | | Rx | | Tx | | Rx | | Rx |
|----------------------------| |--------| |--------| |----------------------------| |--------| |--------|
|---------| |---------|
Rx delay 1 Rx delay 1
|------------------------| |------------------------|
Rx delay 2 Rx delay 2
Figure 2: LoRaWAN Class A transmission and reception window Figure 2: LoRaWAN Class A transmission and reception window
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
| Parameters | Default Value | | Parameters | Default Value |
+------------------------+------------------------------------------+ +------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Rx delay 1 | 1 s | | Rx delay 1 | 1 s |
| | | | | |
| Rx delay 2 | 2 s (must be RECEIVE_DELAY1 + 1s) | | Rx delay 2 | 2 s (must be RECEIVE_DELAY1 + 1s) |
| | | | | |
| join delay 1 | 5 s | | join delay 1 | 5 s |
| | | | | |
| join delay 2 | 6 s | | join delay 2 | 6 s |
| | | | | |
| 868MHz Default | 3 (868.1,868.2,868.3), date rate: 0.3-5 | | 868MHz Default | 3 (868.1,868.2,868.3), data rate: 0.3-5 |
| channels | kbps | | channels | kbps |
+------------------------+------------------------------------------+ +------------------------+------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Default settings for EU868MHz band Table 1: Default settings for EU868MHz band
+-----------------------------------------------+--------+----------+ +-----------------------------------------------+--------+----------+
| Parameter/Notes | Min | Max | | Parameter/Notes | Min | Max |
+-----------------------------------------------+--------+----------+ +-----------------------------------------------+--------+----------+
| Duty Cycle: some but not all ISM bands impose | 1% | no-limit | | Duty Cycle: some but not all ISM bands impose | 1% | no-limit |
| a limit in terms of how often an end-device | | | | a limit in terms of how often an end-device | | |
skipping to change at page 8, line 38 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
for payload (including MAC layer options). However, those settings for payload (including MAC layer options). However, those settings
do not apply for the join procedure - end-devices are required to use do not apply for the join procedure - end-devices are required to use
a channel that can send the 23 byte Join-request message for the join a channel that can send the 23 byte Join-request message for the join
procedure. procedure.
Uplink and downlink higher layer data is carried in a MACPayload. Uplink and downlink higher layer data is carried in a MACPayload.
There is a concept of "ports" (an optional 8 bit value) to handle There is a concept of "ports" (an optional 8 bit value) to handle
different applications on an end-device. Port zero is reserved for different applications on an end-device. Port zero is reserved for
LoRaWAN specific messaging, such as the join procedure. LoRaWAN specific messaging, such as the join procedure.
The header also distinguishes the uplink/downlink directions and
whether or not an acknowledgement ("confirmation") is required from
the peer.
All payloads are encrypted and ciphertexts are protected with a
cryptographic Message Integrity Check (MIC) - see Section 6 for
details.
In addition to carrying higher layer PDUs there are Join-Request and In addition to carrying higher layer PDUs there are Join-Request and
Join-Response (aka Join-Accept) messages for handling network access. Join-Response (aka Join-Accept) messages for handling network access.
And so-called "MAC commands" (see below) up to 15 bytes long can be And so-called "MAC commands" (see below) up to 15 bytes long can be
piggybacked in an options field ("FOpts"). piggybacked in an options field ("FOpts").
LoRaWAN end-devices can choose various different data rates from a
menu of available rates (dependent on the frequencies in use). It is
however, recommended that end-devices set the Adaptive Data Rate
("ADR") bit in the MAC layer which is a signal that the network
should control the data rate (via MAC commands to the end-device).
The network can also assert the ADR bit and control data rates at
it's discretion. The goal is to ensure minimal on-time for radios
whilst increasing throughput and reliability when possible. Other
things being equal, the effect should be that end-devices closer to a
gateway can successfully use higher data rates, whereas end-devices
further from all gateways still receive connectivity though at a
lower data rate.
Data rate changes can be validated via a scheme of acks from the
network with a fall-back to lower rates in the event that downlink
acks go missing.
There are 16 (or 32) bit frame counters maintained in each direction
that are incremented on each transmission (but not re-transmissions)
that are not re-used for a given key. When the device supports a 32
bit counter, then only the least significant 16 bits are sent in the
MAC header, but all 32 bits are used in cryptographic operations.
(If an end-device only supports a 16 bit counter internally, then the
topmost 16 bits are set to zero.)
There are a number of MAC commands for: Link and device status There are a number of MAC commands for: Link and device status
checking, ADR and duty-cycle negotiation, managing the RX windows and checking, ADR and duty-cycle negotiation, managing the RX windows and
radio channel settings. For example, the link check response message radio channel settings. For example, the link check response message
allows the network server (in response to a request from an end- allows the network server (in response to a request from an end-
device) to inform an end-device about the signal attenuation seen device) to inform an end-device about the signal attenuation seen
most recently at a gateway, and to also tell the end-device how many most recently at a gateway, and to also tell the end-device how many
gateways received the corresponding link request MAC command. gateways received the corresponding link request MAC command.
Some MAC commands are initiated by the network server. For example, Some MAC commands are initiated by the network server. For example,
one command allows the network server to ask an end-device to reduce one command allows the network server to ask an end-device to reduce
it's duty-cycle to only use a proportion of the maximum allowed in a it's duty-cycle to only use a proportion of the maximum allowed in a
region. Another allows the network server to query the end-device's region. Another allows the network server to query the end-device's
power status with the response from the end-device specifying whether power status with the response from the end-device specifying whether
it has an external power source or is battery powered (in which case it has an external power source or is battery powered (in which case
a relative battery level is also sent to the network server). a relative battery level is also sent to the network server).
The network server can also inform an end-device about channel
assignments (mid-point frequencies and data rates). Of course, these
must also remain within the bands assigned by local regulation.
A LoRaWAN network has a short network identifier ("NwkID") which is a A LoRaWAN network has a short network identifier ("NwkID") which is a
seven bit value. A private network (common for LoRaWAN) can use the seven bit value. A private network (common for LoRaWAN) can use the
value zero. If a network wishes to support "foreign" end-devices value zero. If a network wishes to support "foreign" end-devices
then the NwkID needs to be registered with the LoRA Alliance, in then the NwkID needs to be registered with the LoRA Alliance, in
which case the NwkID is the seven least significant bits of a which case the NwkID is the seven least significant bits of a
registered 24-bit NetID. (Note however, that the methods for registered 24-bit NetID. (Note however, that the methods for
"roaming" are currently being enhanced within the LoRA Alliance, so "roaming" are currently being enhanced within the LoRA Alliance, so
the situation here is somewhat fluid.) the situation here is somewhat fluid.)
In order to operate nominally on a LoRaWAN network, a device needs a In order to operate nominally on a LoRaWAN network, a device needs a
32-bit device address, which is the catentation of the NwkID and a 32-bit device address, which is the catentation of the NwkID and a
25-bit device-specific network address that is assigned when the 25-bit device-specific network address that is assigned when the
device "joins" the network (see below for the join procedure) or that device "joins" the network (see below for the join procedure) or that
is pre-provisioned into the device. is pre-provisioned into the device.
End-devices are assumed to work with one or a quite limited number of End-devices are assumed to work with one or a quite limited number of
applications, which matches most LoRaWAN use-cases. The applications applications, identified by a 64-bit AppEUI, which is assumed to be a
are identified by a 64-bit AppEUI, which is assumed to be a registered IEEE EUI64 value. In addition, a device needs to have two
registered IEEE EUI64 value. symmetric session keys, one for protecting network artefacts
(port=0), the NwkSKey, and another for protecting appliction layer
In addition, a device needs to have two symmetric session keys, one traffic, the AppSKey. Both keys are used for 128 bit AES
for protecting network artefacts (port=0), the NwkSKey, and another cryptographic operations. So, one option is for an end-device to
for protecting appliction layer traffic, the AppSKey. Both keys are have all of the above, plus channel information, somehow
used for 128 bit AES cryptpgraphic operations. (See Section 6 for (pre-)provisioned, in which case the end-device can simply start
details.) transmitting. This is achievable in many cases via out-of-band means
given the nature of LoRaWAN networks. Table 3 summarises these
So, one option is for an end-device to have all of the above, plus values.
channel information, somehow (pre-)provisioned, in which case the
end-device can simply start transmitting. This is achievable in many
cases via out-of-band means given the nature of LoRaWAN networks.
Table 3 summarises these values.
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+ +---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Value | Description | | Value | Description |
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+ +---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| DevAddr | DevAddr (32-bits) = NwkId (7-bits) + device-specific | | DevAddr | DevAddr (32-bits) = NwkId (7-bits) + device-specific |
| | network address (25 bits) | | | network address (25 bits) |
| | | | | |
| AppEUI | IEEE EUI64 naming the application | | AppEUI | IEEE EUI64 naming the application |
| | | | | |
| NwkSKey | 128 bit network session key for use with AES | | NwkSKey | 128 bit network session key for use with AES |
| | | | | |
| AppSKey | 128 bit application session key for use with AES | | AppSKey | 128 bit application session key for use with AES |
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+ +---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Values required for nominal operation Table 3: Values required for nominal operation
As an alternative, end-devices can use the LoRaWAN join procedure in As an alternative, end-devices can use the LoRaWAN join procedure in
order to setup some of these values and dynamically gain access to order to setup some of these values and dynamically gain access to
the network. the network. To use the join procedure, an end-device must still
know the AppEUI, and in addition, a different (long-term) symmetric
To use the join procedure, an end-device must still know the AppEUI. key that is bound to the AppEUI - this is the application key
In addition to the AppEUI, end-devices using the join procedure need (AppKey), and is distinct from the application session key (AppSKey).
to also know a different (long-term) symmetric key that is bound to The AppKey is required to be specific to the device, that is, each
the AppEUI - this is the application key (AppKey), and is distinct end-device should have a different AppKey value. And finally the
from the application session key (AppSKey). The AppKey is required end-device also needs a long-term identifier for itself,
to be specific to the device, that is, each end-device should have a syntactically also an EUI-64, and known as the device EUI or DevEUI.
different AppKey value. And finally the end-device also needs a Table 4 summarises these values.
long-term identifier for itself, syntactically also an EUI-64, and
known as the device EUI or DevEUI. Table 4 summarises these values.
+---------+----------------------------------------------------+ +---------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Value | Description | | Value | Description |
+---------+----------------------------------------------------+ +---------+----------------------------------------------------+
| DevEUI | IEEE EUI64 naming the device | | DevEUI | IEEE EUI64 naming the device |
| | | | | |
| AppEUI | IEEE EUI64 naming the application | | AppEUI | IEEE EUI64 naming the application |
| | | | | |
| AppKey | 128 bit long term application key for use with AES | | AppKey | 128 bit long term application key for use with AES |
+---------+----------------------------------------------------+ +---------+----------------------------------------------------+
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at page 9, line 40
asserts the AppEUI and DevEUI (integrity protected with the long-term asserts the AppEUI and DevEUI (integrity protected with the long-term
AppKey, but not encrypted) in a Join-request uplink message. This is AppKey, but not encrypted) in a Join-request uplink message. This is
then routed to the network server which interacts with an entity that then routed to the network server which interacts with an entity that
knows that AppKey to verify the Join-request. All going well, a knows that AppKey to verify the Join-request. All going well, a
Join-accept downlink message is returned from the network server to Join-accept downlink message is returned from the network server to
the end-device that specifies the 24-bit NetID, 32-bit DevAddr and the end-device that specifies the 24-bit NetID, 32-bit DevAddr and
channel information and from which the AppSKey and NwkSKey can be channel information and from which the AppSKey and NwkSKey can be
derived based on knowledge of the AppKey. This provides the end- derived based on knowledge of the AppKey. This provides the end-
device with all the values listed in Table 3. device with all the values listed in Table 3.
There is some special handling related to which channels to use and All payloads are encrypted and have data integrity. MAC commands,
for multiple transmissions for the join-request which is intended to when sent as a payload (port zero), are therefore protected. MAC
ensure a successful join in as many cases as possible. Join-request commands piggy-backed as frame options ("FOpts") are however sent in
and Join-accept messages also include some random values (nonces) to clear. Any MAC commands sent as frame options and not only as
both provide some replay protection and to help ensure the session payload, are visible to a passive attacker but are not malleable for
keys are unique per run of the join procedure. If a Join-request an active attacker due to the use of the MIC.
fails validation, then no Join-accept message (indeed no message at
all) is returned to the end-device. For example, if an end-device is
factory-reset then it should end up in a state in which it can re-do
the join procedure.
In this section we describe the use of cryptography in LoRaWAN. This
section is not intended as a full specification but to be sufficient
so that future IETF specifications can encompass the required
security considerations. The emphasis is on describing the
externally visible characteristics of LoRaWAN.
All payloads are encrypted and have data integrity. Frame options
(used for MAC commands) when sent as a payload (port zero) are
therefore protected. MAC commands piggy-backed as frame options
("FOpts") are however sent in clear. Since MAC commands may be sent
as options and not only as payload, any values sent in that manner
are visible to a passive attacker but are not malleable for an active
attacker due to the use of the MIC.
For LoRaWAN version 1.0.x, the NWkSkey session key is used to provide For LoRaWAN version 1.0.x, the NWkSkey session key is used to provide
data integrity between the end-device and the network server. The data integrity between the end-device and the network server. The
AppSKey is used to provide data confidentiality between the end- AppSKey is used to provide data confidentiality between the end-
device and network server, or to the application "behind" the network device and network server, or to the application "behind" the network
server, depending on the implementation of the network. server, depending on the implementation of the network.
All MAC layer messages have an outer 32-bit Message Integrity Code All MAC layer messages have an outer 32-bit Message Integrity Code
(MIC) calculated using AES-CMAC calculated over the ciphertext (MIC) calculated using AES-CMAC calculated over the ciphertext
payload and other headers and using the NwkSkey. payload and other headers and using the NwkSkey. Payloads are
encrypted using AES-128, with a counter-mode derived from IEEE
Payloads are encrypted using AES-128, with a counter-mode derived 802.15.4 using the AppSKey. Gateways are not expected to be provided
from IEEE 802.15.4 using the AppSKey. with the AppSKey or NwkSKey, all of the infrastructure-side
cryptography happens in (or "behind") the network server. When
Gateways are not expected to be provided with the AppSKey or NwkSKey, session keys are derived from the AppKey as a result of the join
all of the infrastructure-side cryptography happens in (or "behind")
the network server.
When session keys are derived from the AppKey as a result of the join
procedure the Join-accept message payload is specially handled. procedure the Join-accept message payload is specially handled.
The long-term AppKey is directly used to protect the Join-accept The long-term AppKey is directly used to protect the Join-accept
message content, but the function used is not an aes-encrypt message content, but the function used is not an aes-encrypt
operation, but rather an aes-decrypt operation. The justification is operation, but rather an aes-decrypt operation. The justification is
that this means that the end-device only needs to implement the aes- that this means that the end-device only needs to implement the aes-
encrypt operation. (The counter mode variant used for payload encrypt operation. (The counter mode variant used for payload
decryption means the end-device doesn't need an aes-decrypt decryption means the end-device doesn't need an aes-decrypt
primitive.) primitive.)
The Join-accept plaintext is always less than 16 bytes long, so The Join-accept plaintext is always less than 16 bytes long, so
electronic code book (ECB) mode is used for protecting Join-accept electronic code book (ECB) mode is used for protecting Join-accept
messages. messages. The Join-accept contains an AppNonce (a 24 bit value) that
is recovered on the end-device along with the other Join-accept
The Join-accept contains an AppNonce (a 24 bit value) that is content (e.g. DevAddr) using the aes-encrypt operation. Once the
recovered on the end-device along with the other Join-accept content Join-accept payload is available to the end-device the session keys
(e.g. DevAddr) using the aes-encrypt operation. are derived from the AppKey, AppNonce and other values, again using
an ECB mode aes-encrypt operation, with the plaintext input being a
Once the Join-accept payload is available to the end-device the maximum of 16 octets.
session keys are derived from the AppKey, AppNonce and other values,
again using an ECB mode aes-encrypt operation, with the plaintext
input being a maximum of 16 octets.
3.2. Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) 2.2. Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT)
[[Text here is from [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot].]] [[Ed: Text here is from [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot].]]
3.2.1. Provenance and Documents 2.2.1. Provenance and Documents
Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) is developed and standardized Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) is developed and standardized
by 3GPP. The standardization of NB-IoT was finalized with 3GPP by 3GPP. The standardization of NB-IoT was finalized with 3GPP
Release-13 in June 2016, but further enhancements for NB-IoT are Release-13 in June 2016, but further enhancements for NB-IoT are
worked on in the following releases, for example in the form of worked on in the following releases, for example in the form of
multicast support. For more information of what has been specified multicast support. For more information of what has been specified
for NB-IoT, 3GPP specification 36.300 [TGPP36300] provides an for NB-IoT, 3GPP specification 36.300 [TGPP36300] provides an
overview and overall description of the E-UTRAN radio interface overview and overall description of the E-UTRAN radio interface
protocol architecture, while specifications 36.321 [TGPP36321], protocol architecture, while specifications 36.321 [TGPP36321],
36.322 [TGPP36322], 36.323 [TGPP36323] and 36.331 [TGPP36331] give 36.322 [TGPP36322], 36.323 [TGPP36323] and 36.331 [TGPP36331] give
more detailed description of MAC, RLC, PDCP and RRC protocol layers more detailed description of MAC, RLC, PDCP and RRC protocol layers
respectively. respectively.
3.2.2. Characteristics 2.2.2. Characteristics
[[Editor notes: Not clear if all the radio info here is needed. Not [[Ed: Not clear what minimum/worst-case MTU might be. There are many
clear what minimum MTU might be. Many 3GPP acronyms/terms to 3GPP acronyms/terms to eliminate or explain.]]
eliminate or explain.]]
Specific targets for NB-IoT include: Less than 5$ module cost, Specific targets for NB-IoT include: Less than 5$ module cost,
extended coverage of 164 dB maximum coupling loss, battery life of extended coverage of 164 dB maximum coupling loss, battery life of
over 10 years, ~55000 devices per cell and uplink reporting latency over 10 years, ~55000 devices per cell and uplink reporting latency
of less than 10 seconds. of less than 10 seconds.
NB-IoT supports Half Duplex FDD operation mode with 60 kbps peak rate NB-IoT supports Half Duplex FDD operation mode with 60 kbps peak rate
in uplink and 30 kbps peak rate in downlink, and a maximum size MTU in uplink and 30 kbps peak rate in downlink, and a maximum size MTU
of 1600 bytes. As the name suggests, NB-IoT uses narrowbands with of 1600 bytes. As the name suggests, NB-IoT uses narrowbands with
the bandwidth of 180 kHz in both, downlink and uplink. The multiple the bandwidth of 180 kHz in both, downlink and uplink. The multiple
skipping to change at page 17, line 16 skipping to change at page 14, line 46
above. above.
Under worst-case conditions, NB-IoT may achieve data rate of roughly Under worst-case conditions, NB-IoT may achieve data rate of roughly
200 bps. For downlink with 164 dB coupling loss, NB-IoT may achieve 200 bps. For downlink with 164 dB coupling loss, NB-IoT may achieve
higher data rates, depending on the deployment mode. Stand-alone higher data rates, depending on the deployment mode. Stand-alone
operation may achieve the highest data rates, up to few kbps, while operation may achieve the highest data rates, up to few kbps, while
in-band and guard-band operations may reach several hundreds of bps. in-band and guard-band operations may reach several hundreds of bps.
NB-IoT may even operate with higher maximum coupling loss than 170 dB NB-IoT may even operate with higher maximum coupling loss than 170 dB
with very low bit rates. with very low bit rates.
3.3. SIGFOX 2.3. SIGFOX
[[Text here is from [I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description].]] [[Ed: Text here is from
[I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description].]]
3.3.1. Provenance and Documents 2.3.1. Provenance and Documents
The SIGFOX LPWAN is in line with the terminology and specifications The SIGFOX LPWAN is in line with the terminology and specifications
being defined by the ETSI ERM TG28 Low Throughput Networks (LTN) being defined by the ETSI ERM TG28 Low Throughput Networks (LTN)
group [etsi_ltn]. As of today, SIGFOX's network has been fully group [etsi_ltn]. As of today, SIGFOX's network has been fully
deployed in 6 countries, with ongoing deployments on 18 other deployed in 6 countries, with ongoing deployments on 18 other
countries, which in total will reach 397M people. countries, in total a geography containing 397M people.
3.3.2. Characteristics 2.3.2. Characteristics
SIGFOX LPWAN autonomous battery-operated devices send only a few SIGFOX LPWAN autonomous battery-operated devices send only a few
bytes per day, week or month, allowing them to remain on a single bytes per day, week or month, in principle allowing them to remain on
battery for up to 10-15 years. a single battery for up to 10-15 years. The capacity of a SIGFOX
base station mainly depends on the number of messages generated by
the devices, and not on the number of devices. The battery life of
devices also depends on the number of messages generated by the
device, but it is important to keep in mind that these devices are
designed to last several years, some of them even buried underground.
The coverage of the cell also depends on the link budget and on the
type of deployment (urban, rural, etc.), which can vary from sending
less than one message per device per day to about ten messages per
device per day.
The radio interface is compliant with the following regulations: The radio interface is compliant with the following regulations:
Spectrum allocation in the USA [fcc_ref] Spectrum allocation in the USA [fcc_ref]
Spectrum allocation in Europe [etsi_ref] Spectrum allocation in Europe [etsi_ref]
Spectrum allocation in Japan [arib_ref] Spectrum allocation in Japan [arib_ref]
The SIGFOX LTN radio interface is also compliant with the local The SIGFOX LTN radio interface is also compliant with the local
skipping to change at page 21, line 31 skipping to change at page 19, line 27
The radio protocol provides mechanisms to authenticate and ensure The radio protocol provides mechanisms to authenticate and ensure
integrity of the message. This is achieved by using a unique device integrity of the message. This is achieved by using a unique device
ID and a message authentication code, which allow ensuring that the ID and a message authentication code, which allow ensuring that the
message has been generated and sent by the device with the ID claimed message has been generated and sent by the device with the ID claimed
in the message. in the message.
Security keys are independent for each device. These keys are Security keys are independent for each device. These keys are
associated with the device ID and they are pre-provisioned. associated with the device ID and they are pre-provisioned.
Application data can be encrypted by the application provider. Application data can be encrypted by the application provider.
3.4. Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) 2.4. Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN)
[[Text here is via personal communication from Bob Heile [[Ed: Text here is via personal communication from Bob Heile
(bheile@ieee.org) and was authored by Bob and Sum Chin Sean. As (bheile@ieee.org) and was authored by Bob and Sum Chin Sean. Many
there is no I-D on which this is based, I've just cut'n'pasted the references to specifications are still needed here.]]
text provided in here with no editing so far. Some editing will of
course be needed, as will references to specifications.]]
3.4.1. Provenance and Documents 2.4.1. Provenance and Documents
The Wi-SUN Alliance is an industry alliance promoting global The Wi-SUN Alliance <https://www.wi-sun.org/> is an industry alliance
interoperability and compliance to open-standards for smart city, for smart city, smart grid, smart utility, and a broad set of general
smart grid, smart utility, and a broad set of general IoT IoT applications. The Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN)
applications. The Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) profile profile is open standards based (primarily on IETF and IEEE802
is open standards based (primarily on IETF and IEEE802 standards) and standards) and was developed to address applications like smart
was developed to address applications like smart municipality/city municipality/city infrastructure monitoring and management, electric
infrastructure monitoring and management, electric vehicle (EV) vehicle (EV) infrastructure, advanced metering infrastructure (AMI),
infrastructure, advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), distribution distribution automation (DA), supervisory control and data
automation (DA), supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) acquisition (SCADA) protection/management, distributed generation
protection/management, distributed generation monitoring and monitoring and management, and many more IoT applications.
management, and many more IoT applications. These applications, Additionally, the Alliance has created a certification program to
although quite different in many respects, share a common set of promote global multi-vendor interoperability.
system requirements such as high network robustness, high scalability
and superior security, which the Wi-SUN FAN addresses. Additionally,
the Alliance has created a certification program to promote global
multi-vendor interoperability.
The FAN profile is an IPv6 frequency hopping wireless mesh network The FAN profile [[Ed: reference needed!]] is an IPv6 frequency
with enterprise level security. The frequency hopping wireless mesh hopping wireless mesh network with support for enterprise level
topology has multiple advantages such as superior network robustness, security. The frequency hopping wireless mesh topology aims to offer
reliability due to high redundancy, good scalability due to the superior network robustness, reliability due to high redundancy, good
flexible mesh configuration and good resilience to interference. All scalability due to the flexible mesh configuration and good
these attributes address the industrial grade requirements set forth resilience to interference. Very low power modes are in development
by various IoT application scenarios. Very low power modes are in permitting long term battery operation of network nodes. [[Ed:
development permitting long term battery operation of network nodes. details welcome.]]
3.4.2. Characteristics 2.4.2. Characteristics
The FAN profile is an IPv6 frequency hopping wireless mesh network [[Ed: this really needs the references.]] The FAN profile is based on
with enterprise level security. The frequency hopping wireless mesh various open standards in IETF, IEEE802 and ANSI/TIA for low power
topology has multiple advantages such as superior network robustness, and lossy networks. The FAN profile specification provides an
reliability due to high redundancy, good scalability due to the application-independent IPv6-based transport service for both
flexible mesh configuration and good resilience to interference. All connectionless (i.e. UDP) and connection-oriented (i.e. TCP)
these attributes address the industrial grade requirements set forth services. There are two possible methods for establishing the IPv6
by various IoT application scenarios. Very low power modes are in packet routing: mandatory Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
development permitting long term battery operation of network nodes. Networks (RPL) at the Network layer or optional Multi-Hop Delivery
Service (MHDS) at the Data Link layer. Table 5 provides an overview
of the FAN network stack.
As indicated above, the FAN profile is based on various open The Transport service is based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
standards in IETF, IEEE802 and ANSI/TIA for low power and lossy defined in RFC768 or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) defined in
networks. The FAN profile specification provides an application- RFC793.
independent IPv6-based transport service for both connectionless
(i.e. UDP) and connection-oriented (i.e. TCP) services. There are The Network service is provided by IPv6 defined in RFC2460 with
two possible methods for establishing the IPv6 packet routing: 6LoWPAN adaptation as defined in RC4944 and RFC6282. Additionally,
mandatory Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) at ICMPv6 as defined in RFC4443 is used for control plane in information
the Network layer or optional Multi-Hop Delivery Service (MHDS) at exchange.
the Data Link layer. Refer to Figure 1 for a pictorial overview of
the FAN protocol stack. The Data Link service provides both control/management of the
Physical layer and data transfer/management services to the Network
layer. These services are divided into Media Access Control (MAC)
and Logical Link Control (LLC) sub-layers. The LLC sub-layer
provides a protocol dispatch service which supports 6LoWPAN and an
optional MAC sub-layer mesh service. The MAC sub-layer is
constructed using data structures defined in IEEE802.15.4-2015.
Multiple modes of frequency hopping are defined. The entire MAC
payload is encapsulated in an IEEE802.15.9 Information Element to
enable LLC protocol dispatch between upper layer 6LoWPAN processing,
MAC sublayer mesh processing, etc. These areas will be expanded once
IEEE802.15.12 is completed
The PHY service is derived from a sub-set of the SUN FSK
specification in IEEE802.15.4-2015. The 2-FSK modulation schemes,
with channel spacing range from 200 to 600 kHz, are defined to
provide data rates from 50 to 300 kbps, with Forward Error Coding
(FEC) as an optional feature. Towards enabling ultra-low-power
applications, the PHY layer design is also extendable to low energy
and critical infrastructure monitoring networks, such as
IEEE802.15.4k.
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Layer | Description | | Layer | Description |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| IPv6 protocol suite | TCP/UDP | | IPv6 protocol suite | TCP/UDP |
| | | | | |
| | 6LoWPAN Adaptation + Header | | | 6LoWPAN Adaptation + Header |
| | Compression | | | Compression |
| | | | | |
| | DHCPv6 for IP address management. | | | DHCPv6 for IP address management. |
skipping to change at page 23, line 46 skipping to change at page 21, line 46
| | Authentication. | | | Authentication. |
| | | | | |
| | 802.11i Group Key Management | | | 802.11i Group Key Management |
| | | | | |
| | Optional ETSI-TS-102-887-2 Node 2 | | | Optional ETSI-TS-102-887-2 Node 2 |
| | Node Key Management | | | Node Key Management |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Table 5: Wi-SUN Stack Overivew Table 5: Wi-SUN Stack Overivew
The Transport service is based on User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
defined in RFC768 or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) defined in
RFC793.
The Network service is provided by IPv6 defined in RFC2460 with
6LoWPAN adaptation as defined in RC4944 and RFC6282. Additionally,
ICMPv6 as defined in RFC4443 is used for control plane in information
exchange.
The Data Link service provides both control/management of the
Physical layer and data transfer/management services to the Network
layer. These services are divided into Media Access Control (MAC)
and Logical Link Control (LLC) sub-layers. The LLC sub-layer
provides a protocol dispatch service which supports 6LoWPAN and an
optional MAC sub-layer mesh service. The MAC sub-layer is
constructed using data structures defined in IEEE802.15.4-2015.
Multiple modes of frequency hopping are defined. The entire MAC
payload is encapsulated in an IEEE802.15.9 Information Element to
enable LLC protocol dispatch between upper layer 6LoWPAN processing,
MAC sublayer mesh processing, etc. These areas will be expanded once
IEEE802.15.12 is completed
The PHY service is derived from a sub-set of the SUN FSK
specification in IEEE802.15.4-2015. The 2-FSK modulation schemes,
with channel spacing range from 200 to 600 kHz, are defined to
provide data rates from 50 to 300 kbps, with Forward Error Coding
(FEC) as an optional feature. Towards enabling ultra-low-power
applications, the PHY layer design is also extendable to low energy
and critical infrastructure monitoring networks, such as
IEEE802.15.4k.
The FAN security supports Data Link layer network access control, The FAN security supports Data Link layer network access control,
mutual authentication, and establishment of a secure pairwise link mutual authentication, and establishment of a secure pairwise link
between a FAN node and its Border Router, which is implemented with between a FAN node and its Border Router, which is implemented with
an adaptation of IEEE802.1X and EAP-TLS as described in RFC5216 using an adaptation of IEEE802.1X and EAP-TLS as described in RFC5216 using
secure device identity as described in IEEE802.1AR. Certificate secure device identity as described in IEEE802.1AR. Certificate
formats are based upon RFC5280. A secure group link between a Border formats are based upon RFC5280. A secure group link between a Border
Router and a set of FAN nodes is established using an adaptation of Router and a set of FAN nodes is established using an adaptation of
the IEEE802.11 Four-Way Handshake. A set of 4 group keys are the IEEE802.11 Four-Way Handshake. A set of 4 group keys are
maintained within the network, one of which is the current transmit maintained within the network, one of which is the current transmit
key. Secure node to node links are supported between one-hop FAN key. Secure node to node links are supported between one-hop FAN
neighbors using an adaptation of ETSI-TS-102-887-2. FAN nodes neighbors using an adaptation of ETSI-TS-102-887-2. FAN nodes
implement Frame Security as specified in IEEE802.15.4-2015. implement Frame Security as specified in IEEE802.15.4-2015.
The Wi-Sun Alliance FAN spec was developed to serve the LPWAN space 3. Generic Terminology
among others. It already includes most needed networking elements as
a result of the longstanding working relationships between the IETF
and IEEE802. Nonetheless, the Alliance feels there is significant
value to this LPWAN effort in IETF and strongly supports its
objectives. Some of the things the Alliance hopes to accomplish
through its participation are awareness (in the event changes are
needed in the FAN spec), to help ensure consistency of approach,
share relevant experience, and to address co-existence issues and
potential interoperability since these solutions will be used in the
same markets in complementary ways. Because it is IP based, the Wi-
SUN FAN already readily interconnects to Ethernet and WiFi through
routers. It would be useful if the same could be accomplished with
other approaches.
4. Generic Terminology
[[Text here is from [I-D.minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis].]] [[Ed: Text here is from [I-D.minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis].]]
LPWAN technologies, such as those discussed below, have similar LPWAN technologies, such as those discussed above, have similar
architectures but different terminology. We can identify different architectures but different terminology. We can identify different
types of entities in a typical LPWAN network: types of entities in a typical LPWAN network:
o The Host, which are the devices or the things (e.g. sensors, o The Host, which are the devices or the things (e.g. sensors,
actuators, etc.), they are named differently in each technology actuators, etc.), they are named differently in each technology
(End Device, User Equipment or End Point). There is a high (End Device, User Equipment or End Point). There can be a high
density of hosts per radio gateway. density of hosts per radio gateway.
o The Radio Gateway, which is the end point of the constrained link. o The Radio Gateway, which is the end point of the constrained link.
It is known as: Gateway, Evolved Node B or Base station. It is known as: Gateway, Evolved Node B or Base station.
o The Network Gateway or Router is the interconnection node between o The Network Gateway or Router is the interconnection node between
the Radio Gateway and the Internet. It is known as: Network the Radio Gateway and the Internet. It is known as: Network
Server, Serving GW or Service Center. Server, Serving GW or Service Center.
o AAA Server, which controls the user authentication, the o AAA Server, which controls the user authentication, the
skipping to change at page 26, line 39 skipping to change at page 23, line 39
() () () | +------+ () () () | +------+
() () () () / \ +---------+ | AAA | () () () () / \ +---------+ | AAA |
() () () () () () / \========| /\ |====|Server| +-----------+ () () () () () () / \========| /\ |====|Server| +-----------+
() () () | | <--|--> | +------+ |Application| () () () | | <--|--> | +------+ |Application|
() () () () / \============| v |==============| Server | () () () () / \============| v |==============| Server |
() () () / \ +---------+ +-----------+ () () () / \ +---------+ +-----------+
HOSTS Radio Gateways Network Gateway HOSTS Radio Gateways Network Gateway
Figure 9: LPWAN Architecture Figure 9: LPWAN Architecture
5. Gap Analysis 4. Gap Analysis
[[Text here is from [I-D.minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis].]] [[Ed: Text here is from [I-D.minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis].]]
5.1. IPv6 and LPWAN 4.1. Naive application of IPv6
IPv6 [RFC2460] has been designed to allocate addresses to all the IPv6 [RFC2460] has been designed to allocate addresses to all the
nodes connected to the Internet. Nevertheless, the header overhead nodes connected to the Internet. Nevertheless, the header overhead
of, at least, 40 bytes introduced by the protocol is incompatible of at least 40 bytes introduced by the protocol is incompatible with
with the LPWAN constraints. If IPv6 (with no further optimization) LPWAN constraints. If IPv6 with no further optimization were used,
were used, several LPWAN frames would be needed just to carry the several LPWAN frames would be needed just to carry the IP header.
header, discussion on this point is developed in the 6LoWPAN section Another problem arises from IPv6 MTU requirements, which require the
below. Another limitation comes from the IPv6 MTU requirement, by layer below to support at least 1280 byte packets [RFC2460].
which the layer below IP has to support packets of at least 1280
bytes [RFC2460].
IPv6 needs a configuration protocol (neighbor discovery protocol, NDP IPv6 needs a configuration protocol (neighbor discovery protocol, NDP
[RFC4861]) for a node to learn network parameters, and the node [RFC4861]) for a node to learn network parameters NDP generates
relation with its neighbours. This protocol generates a regular regular traffic with a relatively large message size that does not
traffic with a large message size that does not fit LPWAN fit LPWAN constraints.
constraints.
5.1.1. Unicast and Multicast mapping
In some LPWAN technologies, layer two multicast is not supported. In In some LPWAN technologies, layer two multicast is not supported. In
that case, if the network topology is a star, the solution and that case, if the network topology is a star, the solution and
considerations of section 3.2.5 of [RFC7668] may be applied. considerations of section 3.2.5 of [RFC7668] may be applied.
5.2. 6LoWPAN and LPWAN [[Ed: other things to maybe mention: IPsec, DHCPv6, anything with
even 1 regular RTT needed, e.g. DNS.]]
4.2. 6LoWPAN
Several technologies that exhibit significant constraints in various Several technologies that exhibit significant constraints in various
dimensions have exploited the 6LoWPAN suite of specifications dimensions have exploited the 6LoWPAN suite of specifications
[RFC4944], [RFC6282], [RFC6775] to support IPv6 [I-D.hong-6lo-use- [RFC4944], [RFC6282], [RFC6775] to support IPv6 [I-D.hong-6lo-use-
cases]. However, the constraints of LPWANs, often more extreme than cases]. However, the constraints of LPWANs, often more extreme than
those typical of technologies that have (re)used 6LoWPAN, constitute those typical of technologies that have (re)used 6LoWPAN, constitute
a challenge for the 6LoWPAN suite in order to enable IPv6 over LPWAN. a challenge for the 6LoWPAN suite in order to enable IPv6 over LPWAN.
LPWANs are characterised by device constraints (in terms of LPWANs are characterised by device constraints (in terms of
processing capacity, memory, and energy availability), and specially, processing capacity, memory, and energy availability), and specially,
link constraints, such as: link constraints, such as:
o very low layer two payload size (from ~10 to ~100 bytes), o very low layer two payload size (from ~10 to ~100 bytes),
o very low bit rate (from ~10 bit/s to ~100 kbit/s), and o very low bit rate (from ~10 bit/s to ~100 kbit/s), and
o in some specific technologies, further message rate constraints o in some specific technologies, further message rate constraints
(e.g. between ~0.1 message/minute and ~1 message/minute) due to (e.g. between ~0.1 message/minute and ~1 message/minute) due to
regional regulations that limit the duty cycle. regional regulations that limit the duty cycle.
5.2.1. 6LoWPAN Header Compression 4.2.1. Header Compression
6LoWPAN header compression reduces IPv6 (and UDP) header overhead by 6LoWPAN header compression reduces IPv6 (and UDP) header overhead by
eliding header fields when they can be derived from the link layer, eliding header fields when they can be derived from the link layer,
and by assuming that some of the header fields will frequently carry and by assuming that some of the header fields will frequently carry
expected values. 6LoWPAN provides both stateless and stateful header expected values. 6LoWPAN provides both stateless and stateful header
compression. In the latter, all nodes of a 6LoWPAN are assumed to compression. In the latter, all nodes of a 6LoWPAN are assumed to
share compression context. In the best case, the IPv6 header for share compression context. In the best case, the IPv6 header for
link-local communication can be reduced to only 2 bytes. For global link-local communication can be reduced to only 2 bytes. For global
communication, the IPv6 header may be compressed down to 3 bytes in communication, the IPv6 header may be compressed down to 3 bytes in
the most extreme case. However, in more practical situations, the the most extreme case. However, in more practical situations, the
lowest IPv6 header size may be 11 bytes (one address prefix smallest IPv6 header size may be 11 bytes (one address prefix
compressed) or 19 bytes (both source and destination prefixes compressed) or 19 bytes (both source and destination prefixes
compressed). These headers are large considering the link layer compressed). These headers are large considering the link layer
payload size of LPWAN technologies, and in some cases are even bigger payload size of LPWAN technologies, and in some cases are even bigger
than the LPWAN PDUs. 6LoWPAN has been initially designed for IEEE than the LPWAN PDUs. 6LoWPAN has been initially designed for IEEE
802.15.4 networks with a frame size up to 127 bytes and a throughput 802.15.4 networks with a frame size up to 127 bytes and a throughput
of up to 250 kb/s, which may or may not be duty-cycled. of up to 250 kb/s, which may or may not be duty-cycled.
5.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration 4.2.2. Address Autoconfiguration
In the ambit of 6LoWPAN, traditionally, Interface Identifiers (IIDs) Traditionally, Interface Identifiers (IIDs) have been derived from
have been derived from link layer identifiers [RFC4944] . This allows link layer identifiers [RFC4944] . This allows optimisations such as
optimisations such as header compression. Nevertheless, recent header compression. Nevertheless, recent guidance has given advice
guidance has given advice on the fact that, due to privacy concerns, on the fact that, due to privacy concerns, 6LoWPAN devices should not
6LoWPAN devices should not be configured to embed their link layer be configured to embed their link layer addresses in the IID by
addresses in the IID by default. default.
5.2.3. Fragmentation 4.2.3. Fragmentation
As stated above, IPv6 requires the layer below to support an MTU of As stated above, IPv6 requires the layer below to support an MTU of
1280 bytes [RFC2460]. Therefore, given the low maximum payload size 1280 bytes [RFC2460]. Therefore, given the low maximum payload size
of LPWAN technologies, fragmentation is needed. of LPWAN technologies, fragmentation is needed.
If a layer of an LPWAN technology supports fragmentation, proper If a layer of an LPWAN technology supports fragmentation, proper
analysis has to be carried out to decide whether the fragmentation analysis has to be carried out to decide whether the fragmentation
functionality provided by the lower layer or fragmentation at the functionality provided by the lower layer or fragmentation at the
adaptation layer should be used. Otherwise, fragmentation adaptation layer should be used. Otherwise, fragmentation
functionality shall be used at the adaptation layer. functionality shall be used at the adaptation layer.
skipping to change at page 28, line 47 skipping to change at page 25, line 44
magnitude below that of IEEE 802.15.4-2003. The overhead of the magnitude below that of IEEE 802.15.4-2003. The overhead of the
6LoWPAN fragmentation header is high, considering the reduced payload 6LoWPAN fragmentation header is high, considering the reduced payload
size of LPWAN technologies and the limited energy availability of the size of LPWAN technologies and the limited energy availability of the
devices using such technologies. Furthermore, its datagram offset devices using such technologies. Furthermore, its datagram offset
field is expressed in increments of eight octets. In some LPWAN field is expressed in increments of eight octets. In some LPWAN
technologies, the 6LoWPAN fragmentation header plus eight octets from technologies, the 6LoWPAN fragmentation header plus eight octets from
the original datagram exceeds the available space in the layer two the original datagram exceeds the available space in the layer two
payload. In addition, the MTU in the LPWAN networks could be payload. In addition, the MTU in the LPWAN networks could be
variable which implies a variable fragmentation solution. variable which implies a variable fragmentation solution.
5.2.4. Neighbor Discovery 4.2.4. Neighbor Discovery
6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery [RFC6775] defined optimizations to IPv6 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery [RFC6775] defined optimizations to IPv6
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861], in order to adapt functionality of the Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861], in order to adapt functionality of the
latter for networks of devices using IEEE 802.15.4 or similar latter for networks of devices using IEEE 802.15.4 or similar
technologies. The optimizations comprise host-initiated interactions technologies. The optimizations comprise host-initiated interactions
to allow for sleeping hosts, replacement of multicast-based address to allow for sleeping hosts, replacement of multicast-based address
resolution for hosts by an address registration mechanism, multihop resolution for hosts by an address registration mechanism, multihop
extensions for prefix distribution and duplicate address detection extensions for prefix distribution and duplicate address detection
(note that these are not needed in a star topology network), and (note that these are not needed in a star topology network), and
support for 6LoWPAN header compression. support for 6LoWPAN header compression.
6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery may be used in not so severely constrained 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery may be used in not so severely constrained
LPWAN networks. The relative overhead incurred will depend on the LPWAN networks. The relative overhead incurred will depend on the
LPWAN technology used (and on its configuration, if appropriate). In LPWAN technology used (and on its configuration, if appropriate). In
certain LPWAN setups (with a maximum payload size above ~60 bytes, certain LPWAN setups (with a maximum payload size above ~60 bytes,
and duty-cycle-free or equivalent operation), an RS/RA/NS/NA exchange and duty-cycle-free or equivalent operation), an RS/RA/NS/NA exchange
may be completed in a few seconds, without incurring packet may be completed in a few seconds, without incurring packet
fragmentation. In other LPWANs (with a maximum payload size of ~10 fragmentation.
bytes, and a message rate of ~0.1 message/minute), the same exchange
may take hours or even days, leading to severe fragmentation and In other LPWANs (with a maximum payload size of ~10 bytes, and a
consuming a significant amount of the available network resources. message rate of ~0.1 message/minute), the same exchange may take
6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery behavior may be tuned through the use of hours or even days, leading to severe fragmentation and consuming a
significant amount of the available network resources. 6LoWPAN
Neighbor Discovery behavior may be tuned through the use of
appropriate values for the default Router Lifetime, the Valid appropriate values for the default Router Lifetime, the Valid
Lifetime in the PIOs, and the Valid Lifetime in the 6CO, as well as Lifetime in the PIOs, and the Valid Lifetime in the 6CO, as well as
the address Registration Lifetime. However, for the latter LPWANs the address Registration Lifetime. However, for the latter LPWANs
mentioned above, 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery is not suitable. mentioned above, 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery is not suitable.
5.3. 6lo and LPWAN 4.3. 6lo
The 6lo WG has been reusing and adapting 6LoWPAN to enable IPv6 The 6lo WG has been reusing and adapting 6LoWPAN to enable IPv6
support over a variety of constrained node link layer technologies support over link layer technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy
such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), ITU-T G.9959, DECT-ULE, MS/TP- (BTLE), ITU-T G.9959, DECT-ULE, MS/TP-RS485, NFC or IEEE 802.11ah.
RS485, NFC or IEEE 802.11ah. These technologies are similar in several aspects to IEEE 802.15.4,
which was the original 6LoWPAN target technology. [[Ed: refs?]]
These technologies are relatively similar in several aspects to IEEE 6lo has mostly used the subset of 6LoWPAN techniques best suited for
802.15.4, which was the original 6LoWPAN target technology. 6LoWPAN each lower layer technology, and has provided additional
has been the basis for the functionality defined by 6Lo, which has optimizations for technologies where the star topology is used, such
mostly used the subset of 6LoWPAN techniques most suitable for each as BTLE or DECT-ULE.
lower layer technology, and has provided additional optimizations for
technologies where the star topology is used, such as BLE or DECT-
ULE.
The main constraint in these networks comes from the nature of the The main constraint in these networks comes from the nature of the
devices (constrained devices), whereas in LPWANs it is the network devices (constrained devices), whereas in LPWANs it is the network
itself that imposes the most stringent constraints. itself that imposes the most stringent constraints. [[Ed: I'm not
sure that conclusion follows from the information provided in this
section - is more needed?.]]
5.4. 6tisch and LPWAN 4.4. 6tisch
The 6tisch solution is dedicated to mesh networks that operate using The 6tisch solution is dedicated to mesh networks that operate using
802.15.4e MAC with a deterministic slotted channel. The TSCH can 802.15.4e MAC with a deterministic slotted channel. The TSCH [[Ed:
help to reduce collisions and to enable a better balance over the expand on 1st use]] can help to reduce collisions and to enable a
channels. It improves the battery life by avoiding the idle better balance over the channels. It improves the battery life by
listening time for the return channel. avoiding the idle listening time for the return channel.
A key element of 6tisch is the use of synchronization to enable A key element of 6tisch is the use of synchronization to enable
determinism. TSCH and 6TiSCH may provide a standard scheduling determinism. TSCH and 6TiSCH may provide a standard scheduling
function. The LPWAN networks probably will not support function. The LPWAN networks probably will not support
synchronization like the one used in 6tisch. synchronization like the one used in 6tisch.
5.5. RoHC and LPWAN 4.5. RoHC
RoHC header compression mechanisms were defined for point to point RoHC [[Ed: expand on 1st use]] header compression mechanisms were
multimedia channels, to reduce the header overhead of the RTP flows, defined for point to point multimedia channels, to reduce the header
it can also reduce the overhead of IPv4 or IPv6 or IPv4/v6/UDP overhead of RTP flows. RoHC can also reduce the overhead of IPv4 or
headers. It is based on a shared context which does not require any IPv6 or UDP headers. It is based on shared context which does not
state but packets are not routable. The context is initialised at require any state but compressed packets are not routable. The
the beginning of the communication or when it is lost. The context is initialised at the beginning of the communication or when
compression is managed using a sequence number (SN) which is encoded it [[Ed: which "it"?]] is lost. The compression is managed using a
using a window algorithm letting the reduction of the SN to 4 bits sequence number (SN) which is encoded using a windowing algorithm
instead of 2 bytes. But this window needs to be updated each 15 allowing for reduction of the SN to 4 bits instead of 2 bytes. [[Ed:
packets which implies larger headers. When RoHC compression is used is that the 2 bytes as per 6lowPAN?]] But this window needs to be
we talk about an average header compression size to give the updated each 15 packets which implies larger headers. When RoHC is
performance of compression. For example, the compression start used we talk about an average header compression size to give the
sending bigger packets than the original (52 bytes) to reduce the performance of compression. For example, RoHC starts sending bigger
header up to 4 bytes (it stays here only for 15 packets, which packets than the original (52 bytes) to reduce the header up to 4
correspond to the window size). Each time the context is lost or bytes (it stays here only for 15 packets, which correspond to the
needs to be synchronised, packets of about 15 to 43 bytes are sent. window size). Each time the context is lost or needs to be
synchronised, packets of about 15 to 43 bytes are sent. [[Ed: the
above isn't that cleaar to me.]]
The RoHC header compression is not adapted to the constrained nodes RoHC is not adapted to the constrained nodes of the LPWAN networks:
of the LPWAN networks: it does not take into account the energy it does not take into account the energy limitations and the
limitations and the transmission rate, and context is synchronised transmission rate, and context is synchronised during the
during the transmission, which does not allow a better compression. transmission, which does not allow a better compression. [[Ed: this
seems to conflict a bit with what was said about 6tisch which puzzled
me.]]
5.6. ROLL and LPWAN 4.6. ROLL
The LPWAN technologies considered by the lpwan WG are based on a star Most technologies considered by the lpwan WG are based on a star
topology, which eliminates the need for routing. Future works may topology, which eliminates the need for routing at that layer.
address additional use-cases which may require the adaptation of Future work may address additional use-cases that may require
existing routing protocols or the definition of new ones. As of the adaptation of existing routing protocols or the definition of new
writing, the work done at the ROLL WG and other routing protocols are ones. As of the time of writing, work similar to that done in the
out of scope of the LPWAN WG. ROLL WG and other routing protocols are out of scope of the LPWAN WG.
5.7. CoRE and LPWAN 4.7. CoAP
CoRE provides a resource-oriented framework for applications intended CoAP [RFC7252] provides a RESTful framework for applications intended
to run on constrained IP networks. It may be necessary to adapt the to run on constrained IP networks. It may be necessary to adapt CoAP
protocols to take into account the duty cycling and the potentially or related protocols to take into account for the extreme duty cycles
extremely limited throughput of LPWANs. and the potentially extremely limited throughput of LPWANs.
For example, some of the timers in CoAP may need to be redefined. For example, some of the timers in CoAP may need to be redefined.
Taking into account CoAP acknowledgements may allow the reduction of Taking into account CoAP acknowledgements may allow the reduction of
L2 acknowledgements. On the other hand, the current work in progress L2 acknowledgements. On the other hand, the current work in progress
in the CoRE WG where the COMI/CoOL network management interface in the CoRE WG where the COMI/CoOL network management interface
which, uses Structured Identifiers (SID) to reduce payload size over which, uses Structured Identifiers (SID) to reduce payload size over
CoAP proves to be a good solution for the LPWAN technologies. The CoAP proves to be a good solution for the LPWAN technologies. The
overhead is reduced by adding a dictionary which matches a URI to a overhead is reduced by adding a dictionary which matches a URI to a
small identifier and a compact mapping of the YANG model into the small identifier and a compact mapping of the YANG model into the
CBOR binary representation. CBOR binary representation.
5.8. Security and LPWAN 4.8. Mobility
Most of the LPWAN technologies integrate some authentication or
encryption mechanisms that may not have been defined by the IETF.
The working group will work to integrate these mechanisms to unify
management. For the technologies which are not integrating natively
security protocols, it is necessary to adapt existing mechanisms to
the LPWAN constraints. The AAA infrastructure brings a scalable
solution. It offers a central management for the security processes,
draft-garcia- dime-diameter-lorawan-00 and draft-garcia-radext-
radius-lorawan-00 explain the possible security process for a LoRaWAN
network. The mechanisms basically are divided in: key management
protocols, encryption and integrity algorithms used. Most of the
solutions do not present a key management procedure to derive
specific keys for securing network and or data information. In most
cases, a pre-shared key between the smart object and the
communication endpoint is assumed.
5.9. Mobility and LPWAN
LPWANs nodes can be mobile. However, LPWAN mobility is different LPWANs nodes can be mobile. However, LPWAN mobility is different
from the one specified for Mobile IP. LPWAN implies sporadic traffic from the one specified for Mobile IP. LPWAN implies sporadic traffic
and will rarely be used for high-frequency, real-time communications. and will rarely be used for high-frequency, real-time communications.
The applications do not generate a flow, they need to save energy and The applications do not generate a flow, they need to save energy and
most of the time the node will be down. The mobility will imply most most of the time the node will be down. The mobility will imply most
of the time a group of devices, which represent a network itself. of the time a group of devices, which represent a network itself.
The mobility concerns more the gateway than the devices. The mobility concerns more the gateway than the devices.
5.9.1. NEMO and LPWAN NEMO [[Ed: refs?]] Mobility solutions may be used in the case where
some hosts belonging to the same Network gateway will move from one
NEMO Mobility solutions may be used in the case where some hosts point to another and that they are not aware of this mobility.
belonging to the same Network gateway will move from one point to
another and that they are not aware of this mobility.
5.10. DNS and LPWAN 4.9. DNS and LPWAN
The purpose of the DNS is to enable applications to name things that The purpose of the DNS is to enable applications to name things that
have a global unique name. Lots of protocols are using DNS to have a global unique name. Lots of protocols are using DNS to
identify the objects, especially REST and applications using CoAP. identify the objects, especially REST and applications using CoAP.
Therefore, things should be registered in DNS. DNS is probably a Therefore, hosts (things), or the named services they use, should be
good topic of research for LPWAN technologies, while the matching of registered in DNS. DNS is probably a good topic of research for
the name and the IP information can be used to configure the LPWAN LPWAN technologies, while the matching of the name and the IP
devices. information can be used to configure the LPWAN devices. [[Ed: I'm
not sure what that last bit means.]]
6. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
[[Ed: Yep, these are tbd.]] [[Ed: be good to add stuff here about a) privacy and b) difficulties
with getting current security protocols to work in this context. For
a) maybe try find nice illustrations, e.g. extremecom instrumeted-
igloo traces (temperature change allowing one to infer when someone
took a pee:-). For b) things like IPsec/(D)TLS/OCSP and NTP to work
in these environments. Not sure how much of that is known or useful
for the WG. Probably worth noting the IAB statement on
confidentiality and to ponder the impact of more than one layer of
encryption in this context. Text below is basically from the "gaps"
draft.]]
Most LPWAN technologies integrate some authentication or encryption
mechanisms that were defined outside the IETF. The working group may
need to do work to integrate these mechanisms to unify management. A
standardized Authentication, Accounting and Authorization (AAA)
infrastructure [RFC2904] may offer a scalable solution for some of
the security and management issues for LPWANs. AAA offers
centralized management that may be of use in LPWANs, for example
[I-D.garcia-dime-diameter-lorawan] and
[I-D.garcia-radext-radius-lorawan] suggest possible security
processes for a LoRaWAN network. Similar mechanisms may be useful to
explore for other LPWAN technologies.
7. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this memo. There are no IANA considerations related to this memo.
8. Contributors 7. Contributors
As stated above this document is mainly a collection of content As stated above this document is mainly a collection of content
developed by the full set of contributors listed below. The main developed by the full set of contributors listed below. The main
input documents and their authors were: input documents and their authors were:
o Text for Section 3.1 was provieded by Alper Yegin and Stephen o Text for Section 2.1 was provieded by Alper Yegin and Stephen
Farrell in [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]. Farrell in [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview].
o Text for Section 3.2 was provided by Antti Ratilainen in o Text for Section 2.2 was provided by Antti Ratilainen in
[I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot]. [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot].
o Text for Section 3.3 was provided by Juan Carlos Zuniga and Benoit o Text for Section 2.3 was provided by Juan Carlos Zuniga and Benoit
Ponsard in [I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description]. Ponsard in [I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description].
o Text for Section 3.4 was provided via personal communication from o Text for Section 2.4 was provided via personal communication from
Bob Heile (bheile@ieee.org) and was authored by Bob and Sum Chin Bob Heile (bheile@ieee.org) and was authored by Bob and Sum Chin
Sean. There is no Internet draft for that at present. Sean. There is no Internet draft for that at present.
o Text for Section 5 was provided by Ana Minabiru, Carles Gomez, o Text for Section 4 was provided by Ana Minabiru, Carles Gomez,
Laurent Toutain, Josep Paradells and Jon Crowcroft in Laurent Toutain, Josep Paradells and Jon Crowcroft in
[I-D.minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis]. Additional text from that [I-D.minaburo-lpwan-gap-analysis]. Additional text from that
draft is also used elsewhere above. draft is also used elsewhere above.
The full list of contributors are: The full list of contributors are:
Jon Crowcroft Jon Crowcroft
University of Cambridge University of Cambridge
JJ Thomson Avenue JJ Thomson Avenue
Cambridge, CB3 0FD Cambridge, CB3 0FD
skipping to change at page 35, line 5 skipping to change at page 32, line 5
Juan Carlos Zuniga Juan Carlos Zuniga
SIGFOX SIGFOX
425 rue Jean Rostand 425 rue Jean Rostand
Labege 31670 Labege 31670
France France
Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@sigfox.com Email: JuanCarlos.Zuniga@sigfox.com
URI: http://www.sigfox.com/ URI: http://www.sigfox.com/
9. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to all those listed in Section 8 for the excellent text. Thanks to all those listed in Section 7 for the excellent text.
Errors in the handling of that are solely the editor's fault. Errors in the handling of that are solely the editor's fault.
Thanks to [your name here] for comments. In addition to the contributors above, thanks are due to Jiazi Yi,
[your name here] for comments.
Stephen Farrell's work on this memo was supported by the Science Stephen Farrell's work on this memo was supported by the Science
Foundation Ireland funded CONNECT centre <https://connectcentre.ie/>. Foundation Ireland funded CONNECT centre <https://connectcentre.ie/>.
10. Informative References 9. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2904] Vollbrecht, J., Calhoun, P., Farrell, S., Gommans, L.,
Gross, G., de Bruijn, B., de Laat, C., Holdrege, M., and
D. Spence, "AAA Authorization Framework", RFC 2904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2904, August 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2904>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
skipping to change at page 35, line 47 skipping to change at page 32, line 49
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B., [RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015, Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>.
[I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview] [I-D.farrell-lpwan-lora-overview]
Farrell, S. and A. Yegin, "LoRaWAN Overview", draft- Farrell, S. and A. Yegin, "LoRaWAN Overview", draft-
farrell-lpwan-lora-overview-01 (work in progress), October farrell-lpwan-lora-overview-01 (work in progress), October
2016. 2016.
skipping to change at page 36, line 25 skipping to change at page 33, line 30
[I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description] [I-D.zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description]
Zuniga, J. and B. PONSARD, "SIGFOX System Description", Zuniga, J. and B. PONSARD, "SIGFOX System Description",
draft-zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description-00 (work in draft-zuniga-lpwan-sigfox-system-description-00 (work in
progress), July 2016. progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot] [I-D.ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot]
Ratilainen, A., "NB-IoT characteristics", draft- Ratilainen, A., "NB-IoT characteristics", draft-
ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot-00 (work in progress), July 2016. ratilainen-lpwan-nb-iot-00 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.garcia-dime-diameter-lorawan]
Garcia, D., Lopez, R., Kandasamy, A., and A. Pelov,
"LoRaWAN Authentication in Diameter", draft-garcia-dime-
diameter-lorawan-00 (work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.garcia-radext-radius-lorawan]
Garcia, D., Lopez, R., Kandasamy, A., and A. Pelov,
"LoRaWAN Authentication in RADIUS", draft-garcia-radext-
radius-lorawan-01 (work in progress), July 2016.
[TGPP36300] [TGPP36300]
3GPP, "TS 36.300 v13.4.0 Evolved Universal Terrestrial 3GPP, "TS 36.300 v13.4.0 Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage
2", 2016, 2", 2016,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/2016-09/Rel-14/36_series/>. <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/2016-09/Rel-14/36_series/>.
[TGPP36321] [TGPP36321]
3GPP, "TS 36.321 v13.2.0 Evolved Universal Terrestrial 3GPP, "TS 36.321 v13.2.0 Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access (E-UTRA); Medium Access Control (MAC) Radio Access (E-UTRA); Medium Access Control (MAC)
 End of changes. 98 change blocks. 
472 lines changed or deleted 366 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/