| < draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-01.txt | draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6Lo Working Group Y-G. Hong | 6Lo Working Group Y-G. Hong | |||
| Internet-Draft ETRI | Internet-Draft ETRI | |||
| Intended status: Informational C. Gomez | Intended status: Informational C. Gomez | |||
| Expires: September 13, 2017 UPC/i2cat | Expires: January 4, 2018 UPC/i2cat | |||
| Y-H. Choi | Y-H. Choi | |||
| ETRI | ETRI | |||
| D-Y. Ko | D-Y. Ko | |||
| SKtelecom | SKtelecom | |||
| AR. Sangi | AR. Sangi | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Individual Contributor | |||
| Take. Aanstoot | T. Aanstoot | |||
| Modio AB | Modio AB | |||
| March 12, 2017 | S. Chakrabarti | |||
| July 3, 2017 | ||||
| IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks(6lo) Applicability & Use cases | IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo) Applicability & Use cases | |||
| draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-01 | draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-02 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes the applicability of IPv6 over constrained | This document describes the applicability of IPv6 over constrained | |||
| node networks (6lo) and use cases. It describes the practical | node networks (6lo) and provides practical deployment examples. In | |||
| deployment scenarios of 6lo technologies with the consideration of | ||||
| 6lo link layer technologies and identifies the requirements. In | ||||
| addition to IEEE 802.15.4, various link layer technologies such as | addition to IEEE 802.15.4, various link layer technologies such as | |||
| ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), BLE, DECT-ULE, MS/TP, NFC, LTE MTC, PLC (IEEE | ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), BLE, DECT-ULE, MS/TP, NFC, PLC (IEEE 1901), | |||
| 1901), and IEEE 802.15.4e(6tisch) are widely used at constrained node | and IEEE 802.15.4e (6tisch) are used as examples. The document | |||
| networks for typical services. Based on these link layer | targets an audience who like to understand and evaluate running end- | |||
| technologies, IPv6 over networks of resource-constrained nodes has | to-end IPv6 over the constrained link layer networks connecting | |||
| various and practical use cases. To efficiently implement typical | devices to each other or to each cloud. | |||
| services, the applicability and consideration of several design space | ||||
| dimensions are described. | ||||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2017. | ||||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018. | ||||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. 6lo Link layer technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3. 6lo Link layer technologies and possible candidates . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3.1. ITU-T G.9959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3.1. ITU-T G.9959 (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3.2. Bluetooth LE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3.2. Bluetooth LE (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3.3. DECT-ULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.3. DECT-ULE (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3.4. MS/TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.4. MS/TP (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3.5. NFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.5. NFC (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.6. LTE MTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.6. PLC (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.7. PLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.7. IEEE 802.15.4e (specified) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.8. IEEE 802.15.4e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.8. LTE MTC (example of a potential candidate) . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 3.9. Comparison between 6lo Link layer technologies . . . . . 8 | ||||
| 4. 6lo Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4. 6lo Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 5. Design Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.1. jupitermesh in Smart Grid using 6lo in network layer . . 9 | |||
| 6. 6lo Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.2. Wi-SUN usage of 6lo stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 6.1. Use case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5. Design Space and Guidelines for 6lo Deployment . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 6.2. Use case of Bluetooth LE: Smartphone-Based Interaction | 5.1. Design Space Dimensions for 6lo Deployment . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| with Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.2. Guidelines for adopting IPv6 stack (6lo/6LoWPAN) . . . . 14 | |||
| 6.3. Use case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6. 6lo Use Case Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 6.4. Use case of MS/TP: Management of District Heating . . . . 15 | 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 6.5. Use case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer . . . . . . 17 | 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 6.6. Use case of LTE MTC: Gateway for Wireless Backhaul | 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 6.7. Use case of PLC: Smart Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 6.8. Use case of IEEE 802.15.4e: Industrial Automation . . . . 24 | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | Appendix A. Other 6lo Use Case Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | A.1. Use case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | A.2. Use case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | A.3. Use case of MS/TP: Management of District Heating . . . . 22 | |||
| 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | A.4. Use case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | A.5. Use case of PLC: Smart Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | A.6. Use case of IEEE 802.15.4e: Industrial Automation . . . . 24 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Running IPv6 on constrained node networks has different features from | Running IPv6 on constrained node networks has different features from | |||
| general node networks due to the characteristics of constrained node | general node networks due to the characteristics of constrained node | |||
| networks such as small packet size, short link-layer address, low | networks such as small packet size, short link-layer address, low | |||
| bandwidth, network topology, low power, low cost, and large number of | bandwidth, network topology, low power, low cost, and large number of | |||
| devices [RFC4919]. For example, because some IEEE 802.15.4 link | devices [RFC4919][RFC7228]. For example, some IEEE 802.15.4 link | |||
| layers have a frame size of 127 octets and IPv6 requires the layer | layers have a frame size of 127 octets and IPv6 requires the layer | |||
| below to support an MTU of 1280 bytes, an appropriate fragmentation | below to support an MTU of 1280 bytes, therefore an appropriate | |||
| and reassembly adaptation layer must be provided at the layer below | fragmentation and reassembly adaptation layer must be provided at the | |||
| IPv6. Also, the limited size of IEEE 802.15.4 frame and low energy | layer below IPv6. Also, the limited size of IEEE 802.15.4 frame and | |||
| consumption requirements make the need for header compression. IETF | low energy consumption requirements make the need for header | |||
| 6lowpan (IPv6 over Low powerWPAN) working group published, an | compression. The IETF 6LoPWAN (IPv6 over Low powerWPAN) working | |||
| adaptation layer for sending IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.15.4 | group published an adaptation layer for sending IPv6 packets over | |||
| [RFC4944], compression format for IPv6 datagrams over IEEE | IEEE 802.15.4 [RFC4944], a compression format for IPv6 datagrams over | |||
| 802.15.4-based networks [RFC6282], and Neighbor Discovery | IEEE 802.15.4-based networks [RFC6282], and Neighbor Discovery | |||
| Optimization for 6lowpan [RFC6775]. | Optimization for 6LoPWAN [RFC6775]. | |||
| As IoT (Internet of Things) services become more popular, various | As IoT (Internet of Things) services become more popular, IPv6 over | |||
| link layer technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy (Bluetooth LE), | various link layer technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy | |||
| ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications - | (Bluetooth LE), ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), Digital Enhanced Cordless | |||
| Ultra Low Energy (DECT-ULE), Master-Slave/Token Passing (MS/TP), Near | Telecommunications - Ultra Low Energy (DECT-ULE), Master-Slave/Token | |||
| Field Communication (NFC), Power Line Communication (PLC), and LTE | Passing (MS/TP), Near Field Communication (NFC), Power Line | |||
| Machine Type Communication are actively used. And the transmission | Communication (PLC), and IEEE 802.15.4e (TSCH), have been defined at | |||
| of IPv6 packets over these link layer technologies is required. A | [IETF_6lo] working group. IPv6 stacks for constrained node networks | |||
| number of IPv6-over-foo documents have been developed in the IETF 6lo | use a variation of the 6LoWPAN stack applied to each particular link | |||
| (IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes) and 6tisch (IPv6 | layer technology. | |||
| over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e) working groups. | ||||
| In the 6lowpan working group, the [RFC6568], "Design and Application | In the 6LoPWAN working group, the [RFC6568], "Design and Application | |||
| Spaces for 6LoWPANs" was published and it describes potential | Spaces for 6LoWPANs" was published and it describes potential | |||
| application scenarios and use cases for low-power wireless personal | application scenarios and use cases for low-power wireless personal | |||
| area networks. In this document, various design space dimensions | area networks. Hence, this 6lo applicability document aims to | |||
| such as deployment, network size, power source, connectivity, multi- | provide guidance to an audience who is new to IPv6-over-lowpower | |||
| hop communication, traffic pattern, security level, mobility, and QoS | networks concept and wants to assess if variance of 6LoWPAN stack | |||
| were analyzed. And it described a fundamental set of 6lowpan | [6lo] can be applied to the constrained L2 network of their interest. | |||
| application scenarios and use cases: Industrial monitoring-Hospital | This 6lo applicability document puts together various design space | |||
| storage rooms, Structural monitoring-Bridge safety monitoring, | dimensions such as deployment, network size, power source, | |||
| Connected home-Home automation and Smart grid assistance, Healthcare- | connectivity, multi-hop communication, traffic pattern, security | |||
| Healthcare at home by tele-assistance, Vehicle telematics-telematics, | level, mobility, and QoS requirements etc. And it described a few | |||
| and Agricultural monitoring-Automated vineyard. | set of 6LoPWAN application scenarios and practical deployment as | |||
| examples. | ||||
| Even though the [RFC6568] describes some potential application | ||||
| scenarios and use cases and it lists the design space in the context | ||||
| of 6lowpan, it does not cover the different use cases and design | ||||
| space in the context of the 6lo working group. The [RFC6568] assumed | ||||
| that the link layer technology is the IEEE802.15.4 and the described | ||||
| application scenarios and use cases were based on the IEEE 802.15.4 | ||||
| technologies. Due to various link layer technologies such as ITU-T | ||||
| G.9959 (Z-Wave), BLE, DECT-ULE, MS/TP, NFC, LTE MTC, Power Line | ||||
| Communication (PLC), and IEEE 802.15.4e(6tisch), potential | ||||
| application scenarios and use cases of 6lo will go beyond the | ||||
| [RFC6568]. | ||||
| This document provides the applicability and use cases of 6lo, | This document provides the applicability and use cases of 6lo, | |||
| considering the following aspects: | considering the following aspects: | |||
| o 6lo applicability and use cases MAY be uniquely different from | o 6lo applicability and use cases MAY be uniquely different from | |||
| those of 6lowpan. | those of 6LoWPAN defined for IEEE 802.15.4. | |||
| o 6lo applicability and use cases SHOULD cover various IoT related | o It SHOULD cover various IoT related wire/wireless link layer | |||
| wire/wireless link layer technologies providing practical | technologies providing practical information of such technologies. | |||
| information of such technologies. | ||||
| o 6lo applicability and use cases SHOULD describe characteristics | o A general guideline on how the 6LoWPAN stack can be modified for a | |||
| and typical use cases of each link layer technology, and then 6lo | given L2 technology. | |||
| use cases's applicability. | ||||
| o Example use cases and practical deployment examples. | ||||
| 2. Conventions and Terminology | 2. Conventions and Terminology | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | |||
| 3. 6lo Link layer technologies | 3. 6lo Link layer technologies and possible candidates | |||
| 3.1. ITU-T G.9959 | 3.1. ITU-T G.9959 (specified) | |||
| The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation [G.9959] targets low-power Personal | The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation [G.9959] targets low-power Personal | |||
| Area Networks (PANs). G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID | Area Networks (PANs). G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID | |||
| network identifier is assigned by a network controller and how an | network identifier is assigned by a network controller and how an | |||
| 8-bit NodeID host identifier is allocated to each node. NodeIDs are | 8-bit NodeID host identifier is allocated to each node. NodeIDs are | |||
| unique within the network identified by the HomeID. The G.9959 | unique within the network identified by the HomeID. The G.9959 | |||
| HomeID represents an IPv6 subnet that is identified by one or more | HomeID represents an IPv6 subnet that is identified by one or more | |||
| IPv6 prefixes [RFC7428]. | IPv6 prefixes [RFC7428]. The ITU-T G.9959 can be used for smart home | |||
| applications. | ||||
| 3.2. Bluetooth LE | 3.2. Bluetooth LE (specified) | |||
| Bluetooth LE was introduced in Bluetooth 4.0, enhanced in Bluetooth | Bluetooth LE was introduced in Bluetooth 4.0, enhanced in Bluetooth | |||
| 4.1, and developed even further in successive versions. Bluetooth | 4.1, and developed even further in successive versions. Bluetooth | |||
| SIG has also published Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP). The | SIG has also published Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP). The | |||
| IPSP enables discovery of IP-enabled devices and establishment of | IPSP enables discovery of IP-enabled devices and establishment of | |||
| link-layer connection for transporting IPv6 packets. IPv6 over | link-layer connection for transporting IPv6 packets. IPv6 over | |||
| Bluetooth LE is dependent on both Bluetooth 4.1 and IPSP 1.0 or | Bluetooth LE is dependent on both Bluetooth 4.1 and IPSP 1.0 or | |||
| newer. | newer. | |||
| Devices such as mobile phones, notebooks, tablets and other handheld | Devices such as mobile phones, notebooks, tablets and other handheld | |||
| computing devices which will include Bluetooth 4.1 chipsets will | computing devices which will include Bluetooth 4.1 chipsets will | |||
| probably also have the low-energy variant of Bluetooth. Bluetooth LE | probably also have the low-energy variant of Bluetooth. Bluetooth LE | |||
| will also be included in many different types of accessories that | will also be included in many different types of accessories that | |||
| collaborate with mobile devices such as phones, tablets and notebook | collaborate with mobile devices such as phones, tablets and notebook | |||
| computers. An example of a use case for a Bluetooth LE accessory is | computers. An example of a use case for a Bluetooth LE accessory is | |||
| a heart rate monitor that sends data via the mobile phone to a server | a heart rate monitor that sends data via the mobile phone to a server | |||
| on the Internet [RFC7668]. | on the Internet [RFC7668]. A typical usage of Bluetooth LE is | |||
| smartphone-based interaction with constrained devices. | ||||
| 3.3. DECT-ULE | 3.3. DECT-ULE (specified) | |||
| DECT ULE is a low power air interface technology that is designed to | DECT ULE is a low power air interface technology that is designed to | |||
| support both circuit switched services, such as voice communication, | support both circuit switched services, such as voice communication, | |||
| and packet mode data services at modest data rate. | and packet mode data services at modest data rate. | |||
| The DECT ULE protocol stack consists of the PHY layer operating at | The DECT ULE protocol stack consists of the PHY layer operating at | |||
| frequencies in the 1880 - 1920 MHz frequency band depending on the | frequencies in the 1880 - 1920 MHz frequency band depending on the | |||
| region and uses a symbol rate of 1.152 Mbps. Radio bearers are | region and uses a symbol rate of 1.152 Mbps. Radio bearers are | |||
| allocated by use of FDMA/TDMA/TDD techniques. | allocated by use of FDMA/TDMA/TDD techniques. | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 36 ¶ | |||
| The DECT ULE device can switch to the ULE mode of operation, | The DECT ULE device can switch to the ULE mode of operation, | |||
| utilizing the new ULE MAC layer features. The DECT ULE Data Link | utilizing the new ULE MAC layer features. The DECT ULE Data Link | |||
| Control (DLC) provides multiplexing as well as segmentation and re- | Control (DLC) provides multiplexing as well as segmentation and re- | |||
| assembly for larger packets from layers above. The DECT ULE layer | assembly for larger packets from layers above. The DECT ULE layer | |||
| also implements per-message authentication and encryption. The DLC | also implements per-message authentication and encryption. The DLC | |||
| layer ensures packet integrity and preserves packet order, but | layer ensures packet integrity and preserves packet order, but | |||
| delivery is based on best effort. | delivery is based on best effort. | |||
| The current DECT ULE MAC layer standard supports low bandwidth data | The current DECT ULE MAC layer standard supports low bandwidth data | |||
| broadcast. However the usage of this broadcast service has not yet | broadcast. However the usage of this broadcast service has not yet | |||
| been standardized for higher layers [I-D.ietf-6lo-dect-ule]. | been standardized for higher layers [RFC8105]. DECT-ULE can be used | |||
| for smart metering in a home. | ||||
| 3.4. MS/TP | 3.4. MS/TP (specified) | |||
| MS/TP is a contention-free access method for the RS-485 physical | MS/TP is a contention-free access method for the RS-485 physical | |||
| layer, which is used extensively in building automation networks. | layer, which is used extensively in building automation networks. | |||
| An MS/TP device is typically based on a low-cost microcontroller with | An MS/TP device is typically based on a low-cost microcontroller with | |||
| limited processing power and memory. Together with low data rates | limited processing power and memory. Together with low data rates | |||
| and a small address space, these constraints are similar to those | and a small address space, these constraints are similar to those | |||
| faced in 6lowpan networks and suggest some elements of that solution | faced in 6lowpan networks and suggest some elements of that solution | |||
| might be leveraged. MS/TP differs significantly from 6lowpan in at | might be leveraged. MS/TP differs significantly from 6lowpan in at | |||
| least three aspects: a) MS/TP devices typically have a continuous | least three aspects: a) MS/TP devices typically have a continuous | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 16 ¶ | |||
| MS/TP is designed to enable multidrop networks over shielded twisted | MS/TP is designed to enable multidrop networks over shielded twisted | |||
| pair wiring, although not according to standards, in lower speeds, | pair wiring, although not according to standards, in lower speeds, | |||
| normally 9600 bit/s, re-purposed telecom wiring is widely in use, | normally 9600 bit/s, re-purposed telecom wiring is widely in use, | |||
| keeping deployment cost down. It can support a data rate of 115,200 | keeping deployment cost down. It can support a data rate of 115,200 | |||
| baud on segments up to 1000 meters in length, or segments up to 1200 | baud on segments up to 1000 meters in length, or segments up to 1200 | |||
| meters in length at lower baud rates. An MS/TP link requires only a | meters in length at lower baud rates. An MS/TP link requires only a | |||
| UART, an RS-485 transceiver with a driver that can be disabled, and a | UART, an RS-485 transceiver with a driver that can be disabled, and a | |||
| 5ms resolution timer. These features make MS/TP a cost-effective and | 5ms resolution timer. These features make MS/TP a cost-effective and | |||
| very reliable field bus for the most numerous and least expensive | very reliable field bus for the most numerous and least expensive | |||
| devices in a building automation network [I-D.ietf-6lo-6lobac]. | devices in a building automation network [RFC8163]. MS/TP can be | |||
| used for the management of district heating. | ||||
| 3.5. NFC | 3.5. NFC (specified) | |||
| NFC technology enables simple and safe two-way interactions between | NFC technology enables simple and safe two-way interactions between | |||
| electronic devices, allowing consumers to perform contactless | electronic devices, allowing consumers to perform contactless | |||
| transactions, access digital content, and connect electronic devices | transactions, access digital content, and connect electronic devices | |||
| with a single touch. NFC complements many popular consumer level | with a single touch. NFC complements many popular consumer level | |||
| wireless technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing | wireless technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing | |||
| standards for contactless card technology (ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and | standards for contactless card technology (ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and | |||
| JIS-X 6319-4). NFC can be compatible with existing contactless card | JIS-X 6319-4). NFC can be compatible with existing contactless card | |||
| infrastructure and it enables a consumer to utilize one device across | infrastructure and it enables a consumer to utilize one device across | |||
| different systems. | different systems. | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 49 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 41 ¶ | |||
| Extending the capability of contactless card technology, NFC also | Extending the capability of contactless card technology, NFC also | |||
| enables devices to share information at a distance that is less than | enables devices to share information at a distance that is less than | |||
| 10 cm with a maximum communication speed of 424 kbps. Users can | 10 cm with a maximum communication speed of 424 kbps. Users can | |||
| share business cards, make transactions, access information from a | share business cards, make transactions, access information from a | |||
| smart poster or provide credentials for access control systems with a | smart poster or provide credentials for access control systems with a | |||
| simple touch. | simple touch. | |||
| NFC's bidirectional communication ability is ideal for establishing | NFC's bidirectional communication ability is ideal for establishing | |||
| connections with other technologies by the simplicity of touch. In | connections with other technologies by the simplicity of touch. In | |||
| addition to the easy connection and quick transactions, simple data | addition to the easy connection and quick transactions, simple data | |||
| sharing is also available [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc]. | sharing is also available [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc]. NFC can be used for | |||
| secure transfer in healthcare services. | ||||
| 3.6. LTE MTC | ||||
| LTE category defines the overall performance and capabilities of the | ||||
| UE(User Equipment). For example, the maximum down rate of category 1 | ||||
| UE and category 2 UE are 10.3 Mbit/s and 51.0 Mbit/s respectively. | ||||
| There are many categories in LTE standard. 3GPP standards defined the | ||||
| category 0 to be used for low rate IoT service in release 12. Since | ||||
| category 1 and category 0 could be used for low rate IoT service, | ||||
| these categories are called LTE MTC (Machine Type Communication) | ||||
| [LTE_MTC]. | ||||
| LTE MTC offer advantages in comparison to above category 2 and is | ||||
| appropriate to be used for low rate IoT services such as low power | ||||
| and low cost. | ||||
| The below figure shows the primary characteristics of LTE MTC. | ||||
| +------------+---------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Category | Max. Data Rate Down | Max. Data Rate Up | | ||||
| +------------+---------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| | Category 0 | 1.0 Mbit/s | 1.0 Mbit/s | | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| | Category 1 | 10.3 Mbit/s | 5.2 Mbit/s | | ||||
| +------------+---------------------+-------------------+ | ||||
| Table 1: Primary characteristics of LTE MTC | ||||
| 3.7. PLC | 3.6. PLC (specified) | |||
| Unlike other dedicated communication infrastructure, the required | Unlike other dedicated communication infrastructure, the required | |||
| medium (power conductor) is widely available indoors and outdoors. | medium (power conductor) is widely available indoors and outdoors. | |||
| Moreover, wire d technologies are more susceptible to cause | Moreover, wired technologies are more susceptible to cause | |||
| interference but are more rel iable than their wireless counterparts. | interference but are more reliable than their wireless counterparts. | |||
| PLC is a data transmission techniq ue that utilizes power conductors | PLC is a data transmission technique that utilizes power conductors | |||
| as medium. | as medium. | |||
| The below figure shows some available open standards defining PLC. | The below table shows some available open standards defining PLC. | |||
| +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
| | PLC Systems | Frequency Range | Type | Data Rate | Distance | | | PLC Systems | Frequency Range | Type | Data Rate | Distance | | |||
| +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
| | IEEE1901 | <100MHz | Broadband | 200Mbps | 1000m | | | IEEE1901 | <100MHz | Broadband | 200Mbps | 1000m | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | IEEE1901.1 | <15MHz | PLC-IoT | 10Mbps | 2000m | | | IEEE1901.1 | <15MHz | PLC-IoT | 10Mbps | 2000m | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | IEEE1901.2 | <500kHz | Narrowband | 200Kbps | 3000m | | | IEEE1901.2 | <500kHz | Narrowband | 200Kbps | 3000m | | |||
| +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
| Table 2: Some Available Open Standards in PLC | Table 1: Some Available Open Standards in PLC | |||
| [IEEE1901] defines broadband variant of PLC but is effective within | [IEEE1901] defines broadband variant of PLC but is effective within | |||
| short range. This standard addresses the requirements of | short range. This standard addresses the requirements of | |||
| applications with high data rate such as: Internet, HDTV, Audio, | applications with high data rate such as: Internet, HDTV, Audio, | |||
| Gaming etc. Broadband operates on OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency | Gaming etc. Broadband operates on OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency | |||
| Division Multiplexing) modulation. | Division Multiplexing) modulation. | |||
| [IEEE1901.2] defines narrowband variant of PLC with less data rate | [IEEE1901.2] defines narrowband variant of PLC with less data rate | |||
| but significantly higher transmission range that could be used in an | but significantly higher transmission range that could be used in an | |||
| indoor or even an outdoor environment. It supports operating either | indoor or even an outdoor environment. It is applicable to typical | |||
| in Low Voltage (LV) or High Voltage (HV) segment of PLC domain. It | IoT applications such as: Building Automation, Renewable Energy, | |||
| is applicable to typical IoT applications such as: Building | Advanced Metering, Street Lighting, Electric Vehicle, Smart Grid etc. | |||
| Automation, Renewable Energy, Advanced Metering, Street Lighting, | Moreover, IEEE 1901.2 standard is based on the 802.15.4 MAC sub-layer | |||
| Electric Vehicle, Smart Grid etc. Narrowband operates either on FSK | and fully endorses the security scheme defined in 802.15.4. | |||
| (Frequency Shift Keying), S (Spread) FSK, BPSK (Binary Phase Shift | [RFC8036]. A typical use case of PLC is smart grid. | |||
| Keying), SS (Spread Spectrum) or OFDM modulation. Moreover, IEEE | ||||
| 1901.2 standard is based on the 802.15.4 MAC sub-layer and fully | ||||
| endorses the security scheme defined in 802.15.4. [RFC8036]. | ||||
| Specific applications come with requirement of diversity. Although | ||||
| IEEE1901 offers higher data rate but is not applicable for long | ||||
| distance scenario due to losses in higher frequencies. On the other | ||||
| hand, IEEE1901.2 is not applicable for real-time services due to low | ||||
| data rate. The IEEE 1901.1 WG is working on a new standard, namely | ||||
| [IEEE1901.1], that provides extended transmission range as compared | ||||
| to IEEE1901 and higher data rate than IEEE1901.2 [IEEE1901.2]. More | ||||
| intelligent IoT financial services are emerging such as: Self Service | ||||
| Terminal, Bank Transfer, Scratch Card, POS (point of sale) etc. and | ||||
| require extensive data transfers. This standard is also known as | ||||
| PLC-IoT and operates on OFDM modulation e.g. FTT (Fast Fourier | ||||
| Transform) and/or wavelet OFDM. | ||||
| 3.8. IEEE 802.15.4e | 3.7. IEEE 802.15.4e (specified) | |||
| The Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) mode was introduced in the | The Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) mode was introduced in the | |||
| IEEE 802.15.4-2015 standard. In a TSCH network, all nodes are | IEEE 802.15.4-2015 standard. In a TSCH network, all nodes are | |||
| synchronized. Time is sliced up into timeslots. The duration of a | synchronized. Time is sliced up into timeslots. The duration of a | |||
| timeslot, typically 10ms, is large enough for a node to send a full- | timeslot, typically 10ms, is large enough for a node to send a full- | |||
| sized frame to its neighbor, and for that neighbor to send back an | sized frame to its neighbor, and for that neighbor to send back an | |||
| acknowledgment to indicate successful reception. Timeslots are | acknowledgment to indicate successful reception. Timeslots are | |||
| grouped into one of more slotframes, which repeat over time. | grouped into one of more slotframes, which repeat over time. | |||
| All the communication in the network is orchestrated by a | All the communication in the network is orchestrated by a | |||
| communication schedule which indicates to each node what to do in | communication schedule which indicates to each node what to do in | |||
| each of the timeslots of a slotframe: transmit, listen or sleep. The | each of the timeslots of a slotframe: transmit, listen or sleep. The | |||
| communication schedule can be built so that the right amount of link- | communication schedule can be built so that the right amount of link- | |||
| layer resources (the cells in the schedule) are scheduled to satisfy | layer resources (the cells in the schedule) are scheduled to satisfy | |||
| the communication needs of the applications running on the network, | the communication needs of the applications running on the network, | |||
| while keeping the energy consumption of the nodes very low. Cells | while keeping the energy consumption of the nodes very low. Cells | |||
| can be scheduled in a collision-free way, introducing a high level of | can be scheduled in a collision-free way, introducing a high level of | |||
| determinism to the network. | determinism to the network. | |||
| A TSCH network exploits channel hopping: subsequent packets exchanged | A TSCH network exploits channel hopping: subsequent packet exchanges | |||
| between neighbor nodes are done on a different frequency. This means | between neighbor nodes are done on a different frequency. This means | |||
| that, if a frame isn't received, the transmitter node will re- | that, if a frame isn't received, the transmitter node will re- | |||
| transmitt the frame on a different frequency. The resulting "channel | transmitt the frame on a different frequency. The resulting "channel | |||
| hopping" efficiently combats external interference and multi-path | hopping" efficiently combats external interference and multi-path | |||
| fading. | fading. | |||
| The main benefits of IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH are: | The main benefits of IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH are: | |||
| - ultra high reliability. Off-the-shelf commercial products offer | - ultra high reliability. Off-the-shelf commercial products offer | |||
| over 99.999% end-to-end reliability. | over 99.999% end-to-end reliability. | |||
| - ultra low-power consumption. Off-the-shelf commercial products | - ultra low-power consumption. Off-the-shelf commercial products | |||
| offer over a decade of battery lifetime. | offer over a decade of battery lifetime. | |||
| - 6TiSCH at IETF defines communications of TSCH network and it | ||||
| uses 6LoWPAN stack [RFC7554]. | ||||
| IEEE 802.15.4e can be used for industrial automation. | ||||
| 3.8. LTE MTC (example of a potential candidate) | ||||
| LTE category defines the overall performance and capabilities of the | ||||
| UE(User Equipment). For example, the maximum down rate of category 1 | ||||
| UE and category 2 UE are 10.3 Mbit/s and 51.0 Mbit/s respectively. | ||||
| There are many categories in LTE standard. 3GPP standards defined the | ||||
| category 0 to be used for low rate IoT service in release 12. Since | ||||
| category 1 and category 0 could be used for low rate IoT service, | ||||
| these categories are called LTE MTC (Machine Type Communication) | ||||
| [LTE_MTC]. | ||||
| LTE MTC offer advantages in comparison to above category 2 and is | ||||
| appropriate to be used for low rate IoT services such as low power | ||||
| and low cost. LTE MTC can be used for a gateway of a wireless | ||||
| bachhaul network. | ||||
| 3.9. Comparison between 6lo Link layer technologies | ||||
| In above clauses, various 6lo Link layer technologies and a possible | ||||
| candidate are described. The following table shows that dominant | ||||
| paramters of each use case corresponding to the 6lo link layer | ||||
| technology. | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | | Z-Wave | BLE |DECT-ULE| MS/TP | NFC | PLC | TSCH | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | | Home |Interact| | | Health-| |Industr-| | ||||
| | Usage | Auto- |w/ Smart| Meter |District| care | Smart |ial Aut-| | ||||
| | | mation | Phone | Reading| Heating| Service| Grid | mation | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | Topology | L2-mesh| Star | Star | Bus | P2P | Tree | | | ||||
| | & | or | | | | | | Mesh | | ||||
| | Subnet | L3-mesh| No mesh| No mesh| MS/TP | L2-mesh| No mesh| | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| | Mobility | No | Low | No | No |Moderate| No | No | | ||||
| | Reqmt | | | | | | | | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | | High + | | High + | High + | | igh + | High + | | ||||
| | Security | Privacy| Parti- | Privacy| Authen.| High |Encrypt.| Privacy| | ||||
| | Reqmt |required| ally |required|required| |required|required| | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| | Buffering | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | | ||||
| | Reqmpt | | | | | | | | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | Latency, | | | | | | | | | ||||
| | QoS | High | Low | Low | High | High | Low | High | | ||||
| | Reqmt | | | | | | | | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| | Data |Infrequ-|Infrequ-|Infrequ-|Frequent| Small |Infrequ-|Infrequ-| | ||||
| | Rate | ent | ent | ent | | | ent | ent | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| | RFC # | | | | | | | | | ||||
| | or | RFC7428| RFC7668| RFC8105| RFC8163| 6lo-nfc|hou-6lo-| RFC7554| | ||||
| | Draft | | | | | | plc | | | ||||
| +-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | ||||
| Table 2: Comparison between 6lo Link layer technologies | ||||
| 4. 6lo Deployment Scenarios | 4. 6lo Deployment Scenarios | |||
| In this clause, we will describe some 6lo deployment scenarios such | 4.1. jupitermesh in Smart Grid using 6lo in network layer | |||
| as Smart Grid activity in WiSun | ||||
| [TBD] | jupiterMesh is a multi-hop wireless mesh network specification | |||
| designed mainly for deployment in large geographical areas. Each | ||||
| subnet in jupiterMesh is able to cover an entire neighborhood with | ||||
| thousands of nodes consisting of IPv6-enabled routers and end-points | ||||
| (e.g., hosts). Automated network joining and load balancing allows a | ||||
| seamless deployment of a large number of subnets. | ||||
| 5. Design Space | The main application domains targeted by jupiterMesh are smart grid | |||
| and smart cities. This includes, but is not limited to the following | ||||
| applications: | ||||
| o Automated meter reading | ||||
| o Distribution Automation (DA) | ||||
| o Demand-side management (DSM) | ||||
| o Demand-side response (DSR) | ||||
| o Power outage reporting | ||||
| o Street light monitoring and control | ||||
| o Transformer load management | ||||
| o EV charging coordination | ||||
| o Energy theft | ||||
| o Parking space locator | ||||
| jupiterMesh specification is based on the following technologies: | ||||
| o The PHY layer is based on IEEE 802.15.4 SUN specification [IEEE | ||||
| 802.15.4-2015], supporting multiple operating modes for deployment | ||||
| in different regulatory domains and deployment scenarios in terms | ||||
| of density and bandwidth requirements. jupiterMesh supports bit | ||||
| rates from 50 kbps to 800 kbps, frame size up to 2048 bytes, up to | ||||
| 11 different RF bands and 3 modulation types (i.e., FSK, OQPSK and | ||||
| OFDM). | ||||
| o The MAC layer is based on IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH specification [IEEE | ||||
| 802.15.4-2015]. With frequency hopping capability, TSCH MAC | ||||
| supports scheduling of dedicated timeslot enabling bandwidth | ||||
| management and QOS. | ||||
| o The security layer consists of a certificate-based (i.e. X.509) | ||||
| network access authentication using EAP-TLS, with IEEE | ||||
| 802.15.9-based KMP (Key Management Protocol) transport, and PANA | ||||
| and link layer encryption using AES-128 CCM as specified in IEEE | ||||
| 802.15.4-2015 [IEEE 802.15.4-2015]. | ||||
| o Address assignment and network configuration are specified using | ||||
| DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC6775] and stateless | ||||
| address auto-configuration (SLAAC) are not supported. | ||||
| o The network layer consists of IPv6, ICPMv6 and 6lo/6LoPWAN header | ||||
| compression [RFC6282]. Multicast is supported using MPL. Two | ||||
| domains are supported, a delay sensitive MPL domain for low | ||||
| latency applications (e.g. DSM, DSR) and a delay insensitive one | ||||
| for less stringent applications (e.g. OTA file transfers). | ||||
| o The routing layer uses RPL [RFC6550] in non-storing mode with the | ||||
| MRHOF objective function based on the ETX metric. | ||||
| 4.2. Wi-SUN usage of 6lo stacks | ||||
| Wireless Smart Ubiquitous Network (Wi-SUN) is a technology based on | ||||
| the IEEE 802.15.4g standard. Wi-SUN networks support star and mesh | ||||
| topologies, as well as hybrid star/mesh deployments, but are | ||||
| typically laid out in a mesh topology where each node relays data for | ||||
| the network to provide network connectivity. Wi-SUN networks are | ||||
| deployed on both powered and battery-operated devices. | ||||
| The main application domains targeted by Wi-SUN are smart utility and | ||||
| smart city networks. This includes, but is not limited to the | ||||
| following applications: | ||||
| o Advanced Metering | ||||
| o Infrastructure (AMI) | ||||
| o Distribution Automation | ||||
| o Home Energy Management | ||||
| o Infrastructure Management | ||||
| o Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||
| o Smart Street Lighting | ||||
| o Agriculture | ||||
| o Structural health (bridges, buildings etc) | ||||
| o Monitoring and Asset Management | ||||
| o Smart Thermostats, Air Conditioning and Heat Controls | ||||
| o Energy Usage Information Displays | ||||
| The Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) covers primarily outdoor | ||||
| networks, and its specification is oriented towards meeting the more | ||||
| rigorous challenges of these environments. Examples include from | ||||
| meter to outdoor access point/router for AMI and DR, or between | ||||
| switches for DA. However, nothing in the profile restricts it to | ||||
| outdoor use. It has the following features; | ||||
| o Open standards based on IEEE802, IETF, TIA, ETSI | ||||
| o Architecture is an IPv6 frequency hopping wireless mesh network | ||||
| with enterprise level security | ||||
| o Simple infrastructure which is low cost, low complexity | ||||
| o Enhanced network robustness, reliability, and resilience to | ||||
| interference, due to high redundancy and frequency hopping | ||||
| o Enhaced scalability, long range, and energy friendliness | ||||
| o Supports multiple global license-exempt sub GHz bands | ||||
| o Multi-vendor interoperability | ||||
| o Very low power modes in development permitting long term battery | ||||
| operation of network nodes | ||||
| In the Wi-SUN FAN specification, adaptation layer based on 6lo and | ||||
| IPv6 network layer are described. So, IPv6 protocol suite including | ||||
| TCP/UDP, 6lo Adaptation, Header Compression, DHCPv6 for IP address | ||||
| management, Routing using RPL, ICMPv6, and Unicast/Multicast | ||||
| forwarding is utilized. | ||||
| 5. Design Space and Guidelines for 6lo Deployment | ||||
| 5.1. Design Space Dimensions for 6lo Deployment | ||||
| The [RFC6568] lists the dimensions used to describe the design space | The [RFC6568] lists the dimensions used to describe the design space | |||
| of wireless sensor networks in the context of the 6lowpan working | of wireless sensor networks in the context of the 6LoWPAN working | |||
| group. The design space is already limited by the unique | group. The design space is already limited by the unique | |||
| characteristics of a LoWPAN (e.g., low power, short range, low bit | characteristics of a LoWPAN (e.g., low power, short range, low bit | |||
| rate). In the RFC 6568, the following design space dimensions are | rate). In [RFC6568], the following design space dimensions are | |||
| described; Deployment, Network size, Power source, Connectivity, | described; Deployment, Network size, Power source, Connectivity, | |||
| Multi-hop communication, Traffic pattern, Mobility, Quality of | Multi-hop communication, Traffic pattern, Mobility, Quality of | |||
| Service (QoS). | Service (QoS). However, in this document, the following design space | |||
| dimensions are considered: | ||||
| The design space dimensions of 6lo are a little different from those | ||||
| of the RFC 6568 due to the different characteristics of 6lo link | ||||
| layer technologies. The following design space dimensions can be | ||||
| considered. | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: 6lo nodes can be connected randomly, or | o Deployment/Bootstrapping: 6lo nodes can be connected randomly, or | |||
| in an organized manner. The bootstrapping has different | in an organized manner. The bootstrapping has different | |||
| characteristics for each link layer technology. | characteristics for each link layer technology. | |||
| o Topology: Topology of 6lo networks may inherently follow the | o Topology: Topology of 6lo networks may inherently follow the | |||
| characteristics of each link layer technology. Point-to-point, | characteristics of each link layer technology. Point-to-point, | |||
| star, tree or mesh topologies can be configured, depending on the | star, tree or mesh topologies can be configured, depending on the | |||
| link layer technology considered. | link layer technology considered. | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 30 ¶ | |||
| 6lo nodes. | 6lo nodes. | |||
| o Data rate: Originally, the link layer technologies of 6lo have low | o Data rate: Originally, the link layer technologies of 6lo have low | |||
| rate of data transmission. But, by adjusting the MTU, it can | rate of data transmission. But, by adjusting the MTU, it can | |||
| deliver higher data rate. | deliver higher data rate. | |||
| o Buffering requirements: Some 6lo use case may require more data | o Buffering requirements: Some 6lo use case may require more data | |||
| rate than the link layer technology support. In this case, a | rate than the link layer technology support. In this case, a | |||
| buffering mechanism to manage the data is required. | buffering mechanism to manage the data is required. | |||
| o Security Requirements: Some 6lo use case can involve transferring | o Security and Privacy Requirements: Some 6lo use case can involve | |||
| some important and personal data between 6lo nodes. In this case, | transferring some important and personal data between 6lo nodes. | |||
| high-level security support is required. | In this case, high-level security support is required. | |||
| o Mobility across 6lo networks and subnets: The movement of 6lo | o Mobility across 6lo networks and subnets: The movement of 6lo | |||
| nodes is dependent on the 6lo use case. If the 6lo nodes can move | nodes is dependent on the 6lo use case. If the 6lo nodes can move | |||
| or moved around, it requires a mobility management mechanism. | or moved around, it requires a mobility management mechanism. | |||
| o Time synchronization requirements: The requirement of time | o Time synchronization requirements: The requirement of time | |||
| synchronization of the upper layer service is dependent on the 6lo | synchronization of the upper layer service is dependent on the 6lo | |||
| use case. For some 6lo use case related to health service, the | use case. For some 6lo use case related to health service, the | |||
| measured data must be recorded with exact time and must be | measured data must be recorded with exact time and must be | |||
| transferred with time synchronization. | transferred with time synchronization. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 13 ¶ | |||
| continuous data and periodic data transmission. | continuous data and periodic data transmission. | |||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Without the external operations, 6lo nodes | o Security Bootstrapping: Without the external operations, 6lo nodes | |||
| must have the security bootstrapping mechanism. | must have the security bootstrapping mechanism. | |||
| o Power use strategy: to enable certain use cases, there may be | o Power use strategy: to enable certain use cases, there may be | |||
| requirements on the class of energy availability and the strategy | requirements on the class of energy availability and the strategy | |||
| followed for using power for communication [RFC7228]. Each link | followed for using power for communication [RFC7228]. Each link | |||
| layer technology defines a particular power use strategy which may | layer technology defines a particular power use strategy which may | |||
| be tuned [I-D.ietf-lwig-energy-efficient]. Readers are expected | be tuned [I-D.ietf-lwig-energy-efficient]. Readers are expected | |||
| to be familiar with RFC 7228 terminology. | to be familiar with [RFC7228] terminology. | |||
| o Update firmware requirements: Most 6lo use cases will need a | o Update firmware requirements: Most 6lo use cases will need a | |||
| mechanism for updating firmware. In these cases support for over | mechanism for updating firmware. In these cases support for over | |||
| the air updates are required, probably in a broadcast mode when | the air updates are required, probably in a broadcast mode when | |||
| bandwith is low and the number of identical devices is high. | bandwith is low and the number of identical devices is high. | |||
| 6. 6lo Use Cases | 5.2. Guidelines for adopting IPv6 stack (6lo/6LoWPAN) | |||
| 6.1. Use case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home | ||||
| Z-Wave is one of the main technologies that may be used to enable | ||||
| smart home applications. Born as a proprietary technology, Z-Wave | ||||
| was specifically designed for this particular use case. Recently, | ||||
| the Z-Wave radio interface (physical and MAC layers) has been | ||||
| standardized as the ITU-T G.9959 specification. | ||||
| Example: Use of ITU-T G.9959 for Home Automation | ||||
| Variety of home devices (e.g. light dimmers/switches, plugs, | ||||
| thermostats, blinds/curtains and remote controls) are augmented with | ||||
| ITU-T G.9959 interfaces. A user may turn on/off or may control home | ||||
| appliances by pressing a wall switch or by pressing a button in a | ||||
| remote control. Scenes may be programmed, so that after a given | ||||
| event, the home devices adopt a specific configuration. Sensors may | ||||
| also periodically send measurements of several parameters (e.g. gas | ||||
| presence, light, temperature, humidity, etc.) which are collected at | ||||
| a sink device, or may generate commands for actuators (e.g. a smoke | ||||
| sensor may send an alarm message to a safety system). | ||||
| The devices involved in the described scenario are nodes of a network | ||||
| that follows the mesh topology, which is suitable for path diversity | ||||
| to face indoor multipath propagation issues. The multihop paradigm | ||||
| allows end-to-end connectivity when direct range communication is not | ||||
| possible. Security support is required, specially for safety-related | ||||
| communication. When a user interaction (e.g. a button press) | ||||
| triggers a message that encapsulates a command, if the message is | ||||
| lost, the user may have to perform further interactions to achieve | ||||
| the desired effect (e.g. a light is turned off). A reaction to a | ||||
| user interaction will be perceived by the user as immediate as long | ||||
| as the reaction takes place within 0.5 seconds [RFC5826]. | ||||
| Dominant parameters in home automation scenarios with ITU-T G.9959: | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: Mesh topology. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: ITU-T G.9959 provides support for L2-mesh, and | ||||
| L3-mesh can also be used (the latter requires an IP-based routing | ||||
| protocol). | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: Multi-link subnet. | ||||
| o Data rate: Small data rate, infrequent transmissions. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: Low requirement. | The following guideline targets candidates for new constrained L2 | |||
| technologies that consider running modified 6LoWPAN stack. The | ||||
| modification of 6LoWPAN stack should be based on the following: | ||||
| o Security requirements: Data privacy and security must be provided. | o Addressing Model: Addressing model determines whether the device | |||
| Encryption is required. | is capable of forming IPv6 Link-local and global addresses and | |||
| what is the best way to derive the IPv6 addresses for the | ||||
| constrained L2 devices. Whether the device is capable of forming | ||||
| IPv6 Link-local and global addresses, L2-address-derived IPv6 | ||||
| addresses are specified in [RFC4944], but there exist implications | ||||
| for privacy. For global usage, a unique IPv6 address must be | ||||
| derived using an assigned prefix and a unique interface ID. | ||||
| [RFC8065] provides such guidelines. For MAC derived IPv6 address, | ||||
| please refer to [RFC8163] for IPv6 address mapping examples. | ||||
| Broadcast and multicast support are dependent on the L2 networks. | ||||
| Most lowpower L2 implementations map multicast to broadcast | ||||
| networks. So care must be taken in the design when to use | ||||
| broadcast and try to stick to unicast messaging whenever possible. | ||||
| o Mobility: Most devices are static. A few devices (e.g. remote | o MTU Considerations: The deployment SHOULD consider their need for | |||
| control) are portable. | maximum transmission unit of a packet (MTU) over the link layer | |||
| and should consider if fragmentation and reassembly of packets are | ||||
| needed at the 6LoWPAN layer. For example, if the link-layer | ||||
| supports fragmentation and reassembly of packets, then 6LoWPAN | ||||
| layer may skip supporting fragmentation/reassembly. In fact, for | ||||
| most efficiency, choosing a low-power link-layer that can carry | ||||
| unfragmented application packets would be optimum for packet | ||||
| transmission if the deployment can afford it. Please refer to 6lo | ||||
| RFCs [RFC7668], [RFC8163], [RFC8105] for example guidance. | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: TBD. | o Mesh or L3-Routing: 6LoWPAN specifications do provide mechanisms | |||
| to support for mesh routing at L2. [RFC6550] defines L3 routing | ||||
| for low power lossy networks using directed graphs. 6LoWPAN is | ||||
| routing protocol agnostic and other L2 or L3 routing protocols can | ||||
| be run using a 6LoWPAN stack. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: Moderate to high level of reliability | o Address Assignment: 6LoWPAN requires that IPv6 Neighbor Discovery | |||
| support. Actions as a result of human-generated traffic should | for low power networks [RFC6775] be used for autoconfiguration of | |||
| occur after less than 0.5 seconds. | stateless IPv6 address assignment. Considering the energy | |||
| sensitive networks [RFC6775] makes optimization from classical | ||||
| IPv6 ND [RFC4861] protocol. It is the responsibility of the | ||||
| deployment to ensure unique global IPv6 addresses for the Internet | ||||
| connectivity. For local-only connectivity IPv6 ULA may be used. | ||||
| [RFC6775] specifies the 6LoWPAN border router(6LBR) which is | ||||
| responsible for prefix assignment to the 6lo/6LoWPAN network. 6LBR | ||||
| can be connected to the Internet or Enterprise network via its one | ||||
| of the interfaces. Please refer to [RFC7668] and [RFC8105] for | ||||
| examples of address assignment considerations. In addition, | ||||
| privacy considerations [RFC8065] must be consulted for | ||||
| applicability. In certain scenarios, the deployment may not | ||||
| support autoconfiguration of IPv6 addressing due to regulatory and | ||||
| business reasons and may choose to offer a separate address | ||||
| assignment service. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Periodic (sensor readings) and aperiodic (user- | o Header Compression: IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] is a vital | |||
| triggered interaction). | part of IPv6 over low power communication. Examples of header | |||
| compression for different link-layers specifications are found in | ||||
| [RFC7668], [RFC8163], [RFC8105]. A generic header compression | ||||
| technique is specified in [RFC7400]. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Required. | o Security and Encryption: Though 6LoWPAN basic specifications do | |||
| not address security at network layer, the assumption is that L2 | ||||
| security must be present. In addition, application level security | ||||
| is highly desirable. The working groups [ace] and [core] should | ||||
| be consulted for application and transport level security. 6lo | ||||
| working group is working on address authentication [6lo-ap-nd] and | ||||
| secure bootstrapping is also being discussed at IETF. However, | ||||
| there may be different levels of security available in a | ||||
| deployment through other standards such as hardware level security | ||||
| or certificates for initial booting process. Encryption is quite | ||||
| important if the implementation can afford it. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: Mix of P1 (Low-power) devices and P9 (Always- | o Additional processing: [RFC8066] defines guidelines for ESC | |||
| on) devices. | dispatch octets use in the 6LoWPAN header. An implementation may | |||
| take advantage of ESC header to offer a deployment specific | ||||
| processing of 6LoWPAN packets. | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | 6. 6lo Use Case Examples | |||
| 6.2. Use case of Bluetooth LE: Smartphone-Based Interaction with | As IPv6 stacks for constrained node networks use a variation of the | |||
| Constrained Devices | 6LoWPAN stack applied to each particular link layer technology, | |||
| various 6lo use cases can be provided. In this clause, one 6lo use | ||||
| case example of Bluetooth LE (Smartphone-Based Interaction with | ||||
| Constrained Devices) is described. Other 6lo use case examples are | ||||
| described in Appendix. | ||||
| The key feature behind the current high Bluetooth LE momentum is its | The key feature behind the current high Bluetooth LE momentum is its | |||
| support in a large majority of smartphones in the market. Bluetooth | support in a large majority of smartphones in the market. Bluetooth | |||
| LE can be used to allow the interaction between the smartphone and | LE can be used to allow the interaction between the smartphone and | |||
| surrounding sensors or actuators. Furthermore, Bluetooth LE is also | surrounding sensors or actuators. Furthermore, Bluetooth LE is also | |||
| the main radio interface currently available in wearables. Since a | the main radio interface currently available in wearables. Since a | |||
| smartphone typically has several radio interfaces that provide | smartphone typically has several radio interfaces that provide | |||
| Internet access, such as Wi-Fi or 4G, the smartphone can act as a | Internet access, such as Wi-Fi or 4G, the smartphone can act as a | |||
| gateway for nearby devices such as sensors, actuators or wearables. | gateway for nearby devices such as sensors, actuators or wearables. | |||
| Bluetooth LE may be used in several domains, including healthcare, | Bluetooth LE may be used in several domains, including healthcare, | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 45 ¶ | |||
| (e.g. alarm signals) from the cloud service via the smartphone. On | (e.g. alarm signals) from the cloud service via the smartphone. On | |||
| the other hand, the smartphone may locally generate messages for the | the other hand, the smartphone may locally generate messages for the | |||
| smartwatch, such as e-mail reception or calendar notifications. | smartwatch, such as e-mail reception or calendar notifications. | |||
| The functionality supported by the smartwatch may be complemented by | The functionality supported by the smartwatch may be complemented by | |||
| other devices such as other on-body sensors, wireless headsets or | other devices such as other on-body sensors, wireless headsets or | |||
| head-mounted displays. All such devices may connect to the | head-mounted displays. All such devices may connect to the | |||
| smartphone creating a star topology network whereby the smartphone is | smartphone creating a star topology network whereby the smartphone is | |||
| the central component. | the central component. | |||
| Dominant parameters in fitness scenarios with Bluetooth LE: | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | There are no IANA considerations related to this document. | |||
| o Topology: Star topology. | 8. Security Considerations | |||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: No. | Security considerations are not directly applicable to this document. | |||
| The use cases will use the security requirements described in the | ||||
| protocol specifications. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: Multi-link subnet. | 9. Acknowledgements | |||
| o Data rate: TBD. | Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government | |||
| (Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte) through the Jose | ||||
| Castillejo grant CAS15/00336. His contribution to this work has been | ||||
| carried out in part during his stay as a visiting scholar at the | ||||
| Computer Laboratory of the University of Cambridge. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: Low requirement. | Thomas Watteyne, Pascal Thubert, Xavier Vilajosana, Daniel Migault, | |||
| and Jianqiang HOU have provided valuable feedback for this draft. | ||||
| o Security requirements: For health-critical information, data | Das Subir and Michel Veillette have provided valuable information of | |||
| privacy and security must be provided. Encryption is required. | jupiterMesh and Paul Duffy has provided valuable information of Wi- | |||
| Some types of notifications sent by the smartphone may not need. | SUN for this draft. | |||
| o Mobility: Low. | 10. References | |||
| o Time Synchronization: the link layer, which is based on TDMA, | 10.1. Normative References | |||
| provides a basis for time synchronization. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: a relatively low ratio of message losses is | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| acceptable for periodic sensor readings. End-to-end latency of | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| sensor readings should be low for critical notifications or | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| alarms, generated by either the smartphone or an Internet cloud | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| service. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: periodic (sensor readings) and aperiodic | [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 | |||
| (smartphone-generated notifications). | over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): | |||
| Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", | ||||
| RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Required. | [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, | |||
| "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 | ||||
| Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P1 (Low-power) devices. | [RFC5826] Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation | |||
| Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", | ||||
| RFC 5826, DOI 10.17487/RFC5826, April 2010, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5826>. | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 | |||
| Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. | ||||
| 6.3. Use case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home | [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., | |||
| Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, | ||||
| JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for | ||||
| Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. | ||||
| [RFC6568] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., and JP. Vasseur, "Design and | ||||
| Application Spaces for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless | ||||
| Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6568, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6568, April 2012, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6568>. | ||||
| [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. | ||||
| Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over | ||||
| Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", | ||||
| RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. | ||||
| [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for | ||||
| Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. | ||||
| [RFC7400] Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for | ||||
| IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks | ||||
| (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November | ||||
| 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7400>. | ||||
| [RFC7428] Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets | ||||
| over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", RFC 7428, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7428, February 2015, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7428>. | ||||
| [RFC7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using | ||||
| IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the | ||||
| Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>. | ||||
| [RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B., | ||||
| Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low | ||||
| Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>. | ||||
| [RFC8036] Cam-Winget, N., Ed., Hui, J., and D. Popa, "Applicability | ||||
| Statement for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy | ||||
| Networks (RPL) in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) | ||||
| Networks", RFC 8036, DOI 10.17487/RFC8036, January 2017, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8036>. | ||||
| [RFC8065] Thaler, D., "Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Adaptation- | ||||
| Layer Mechanisms", RFC 8065, DOI 10.17487/RFC8065, | ||||
| February 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8065>. | ||||
| [RFC8066] Chakrabarti, S., Montenegro, G., Droms, R., and J. | ||||
| Woodyatt, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area | ||||
| Network (6LoWPAN) ESC Dispatch Code Points and | ||||
| Guidelines", RFC 8066, DOI 10.17487/RFC8066, February | ||||
| 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8066>. | ||||
| [RFC8105] Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Ed., Shelby, Z., Van de Logt, | ||||
| M., and D. Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over | ||||
| Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra | ||||
| Low Energy (ULE)", RFC 8105, DOI 10.17487/RFC8105, May | ||||
| 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105>. | ||||
| [RFC8163] Lynn, K., Ed., Martocci, J., Neilson, C., and S. | ||||
| Donaldson, "Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token- | ||||
| Passing (MS/TP) Networks", RFC 8163, DOI 10.17487/RFC8163, | ||||
| May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8163>. | ||||
| 10.2. Informative References | ||||
| [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, | ||||
| C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | ||||
| for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July | ||||
| 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>. | ||||
| [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, | ||||
| "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc] | ||||
| Choi, Y., Hong, Y., Youn, J., Kim, D., and J. Choi, | ||||
| "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field | ||||
| Communication", draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-07 (work in progress), | ||||
| June 2017. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-lwig-energy-efficient] | ||||
| Gomez, C., Kovatsch, M., Tian, H., and Z. Cao, "Energy- | ||||
| Efficient Features of Internet of Things Protocols", | ||||
| draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-07 (work in progress), | ||||
| March 2017. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-roll-aodv-rpl] | ||||
| Anamalamudi, S., Zhang, M., Sangi, A., Perkins, C., and S. | ||||
| Anand, "Asymmetric AODV-P2P-RPL in Low-Power and Lossy | ||||
| Networks (LLNs)", draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-01 (work in | ||||
| progress), March 2017. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0] | ||||
| Dujovne, D., Grieco, L., Palattella, M., and N. Accettura, | ||||
| "6TiSCH 6top Scheduling Function Zero (SF0)", draft-ietf- | ||||
| 6tisch-6top-sf0-04 (work in progress), April 2017. | ||||
| [I-D.satish-6tisch-6top-sf1] | ||||
| Anamalamudi, S., Zhang, M., Sangi, A., Perkins, C., and S. | ||||
| Anand, "Scheduling Function One (SF1) for hop-by-hop | ||||
| Scheduling in 6tisch Networks", draft-satish-6tisch-6top- | ||||
| sf1-03 (work in progress), February 2017. | ||||
| [IETF_6lo] | ||||
| "IETF IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes | ||||
| (6lo) working group", | ||||
| <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/>. | ||||
| [G.9959] "International Telecommunication Union, "Short range | ||||
| narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers - PHY | ||||
| and MAC layer specifications", ITU-T Recommendation", | ||||
| January 2015. | ||||
| [LTE_MTC] "3GPP TS 36.306 V13.0.0, 3rd Generation Partnership | ||||
| Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access | ||||
| Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access | ||||
| (E-UTRA); User Equipment (UE) radio access capabilities | ||||
| (Release 13)", December 2015. | ||||
| [IEEE1901] | ||||
| "IEEE Standard, IEEE Std. 1901-2010 - IEEE Standard for | ||||
| Broadband over Power Line Networks: Medium Access Control | ||||
| and Physical Layer Specifications", 2010, | ||||
| <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ | ||||
| standard/1901-2010.html>. | ||||
| [IEEE1901.1] | ||||
| "IEEE Standard (work-in-progress), IEEE-SA Standards | ||||
| Board", <http://sites.ieee.org/sagroups-1901-1/>. | ||||
| [IEEE1901.2] | ||||
| "IEEE Standard, IEEE Std. 1901.2-2013 - IEEE Standard for | ||||
| Low-Frequency (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line | ||||
| Communications for Smart Grid Applications", 2013, | ||||
| <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ | ||||
| standard/1901.2-2013.html>. | ||||
| Appendix A. Other 6lo Use Case Examples | ||||
| A.1. Use case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home | ||||
| Z-Wave is one of the main technologies that may be used to enable | ||||
| smart home applications. Born as a proprietary technology, Z-Wave | ||||
| was specifically designed for this particular use case. Recently, | ||||
| the Z-Wave radio interface (physical and MAC layers) has been | ||||
| standardized as the ITU-T G.9959 specification. | ||||
| Example: Use of ITU-T G.9959 for Home Automation | ||||
| Variety of home devices (e.g. light dimmers/switches, plugs, | ||||
| thermostats, blinds/curtains and remote controls) are augmented with | ||||
| ITU-T G.9959 interfaces. A user may turn on/off or may control home | ||||
| appliances by pressing a wall switch or by pressing a button in a | ||||
| remote control. Scenes may be programmed, so that after a given | ||||
| event, the home devices adopt a specific configuration. Sensors may | ||||
| also periodically send measurements of several parameters (e.g. gas | ||||
| presence, light, temperature, humidity, etc.) which are collected at | ||||
| a sink device, or may generate commands for actuators (e.g. a smoke | ||||
| sensor may send an alarm message to a safety system). | ||||
| The devices involved in the described scenario are nodes of a network | ||||
| that follows the mesh topology, which is suitable for path diversity | ||||
| to face indoor multipath propagation issues. The multihop paradigm | ||||
| allows end-to-end connectivity when direct range communication is not | ||||
| possible. Security support is required, specially for safety-related | ||||
| communication. When a user interaction (e.g. a button press) | ||||
| triggers a message that encapsulates a command, if the message is | ||||
| lost, the user may have to perform further interactions to achieve | ||||
| the desired effect (e.g. a light is turned off). A reaction to a | ||||
| user interaction will be perceived by the user as immediate as long | ||||
| as the reaction takes place within 0.5 seconds [RFC5826]. | ||||
| A.2. Use case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home | ||||
| DECT is a technology widely used for wireless telephone | DECT is a technology widely used for wireless telephone | |||
| communications in residential scenarios. Since DECT-ULE is a low- | communications in residential scenarios. Since DECT-ULE is a low- | |||
| power variant of DECT, DECT-ULE can be used to connect constrained | power variant of DECT, DECT-ULE can be used to connect constrained | |||
| devices such as sensors and actuators to a Fixed Part, a device that | devices such as sensors and actuators to a Fixed Part, a device that | |||
| typically acts as a base station for wireless telephones. Therefore, | typically acts as a base station for wireless telephones. Therefore, | |||
| DECT-ULE is specially suitable for the connected home space in | DECT-ULE is specially suitable for the connected home space in | |||
| application areas such as home automation, smart metering, safety, | application areas such as home automation, smart metering, safety, | |||
| healthcare, etc. | healthcare, etc. | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 33 ¶ | |||
| transceiver. This device is in the coverage range of the Fixed Part | transceiver. This device is in the coverage range of the Fixed Part | |||
| of the home. The Fixed Part can act as a router connected to the | of the home. The Fixed Part can act as a router connected to the | |||
| Internet. This way, the smart meter can transmit electricity | Internet. This way, the smart meter can transmit electricity | |||
| consumption readings through the DECT-ULE link with the Fixed Part, | consumption readings through the DECT-ULE link with the Fixed Part, | |||
| and the latter can forward such readings to the utility company using | and the latter can forward such readings to the utility company using | |||
| Wide Area Network (WAN) links. The meter can also receive queries | Wide Area Network (WAN) links. The meter can also receive queries | |||
| from the utility company or from an advanced energy control system | from the utility company or from an advanced energy control system | |||
| controlled by the user, which may also be connected to the Fixed Part | controlled by the user, which may also be connected to the Fixed Part | |||
| via DECT-ULE. | via DECT-ULE. | |||
| Dominant parameters in smart metering scenarios with DECT-ULE: | A.3. Use case of MS/TP: Management of District Heating | |||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: Star topology. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: No. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: Multi-link subnet. | ||||
| o Data rate: Small data rate, infrequent transmissions. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: Low requirement. | ||||
| o Security requirements: Data privacy and security must be provided. | ||||
| Encryption is required. | ||||
| o Mobility: No. | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: TBD. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: bounded latency, stringent reliability | ||||
| service agreements [RFC8036]. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Periodic (meter reading notifications sent by | ||||
| the meter) and aperiodic (user- or company-triggered queries to | ||||
| the meter, and messages triggered by local events such as power | ||||
| outage or leak detection [RFC8036]. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: required. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P0 (Normally-off) for devices with long sleep | ||||
| intervals (i.e. greater than ~10 seconds) which then may need to | ||||
| resynchronize again, and P1 (Low-power) for short sleep intervals. | ||||
| P9 (Always-on) for the Fixed Part (FP), which is the central node | ||||
| in the star topology. | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | ||||
| 6.4. Use case of MS/TP: Management of District Heating | ||||
| The key feature of MS/TP is it's ability to run on the same cabling | The key feature of MS/TP is it's ability to run on the same cabling | |||
| as BACnet and some use of ModBus, the defacto standard for low | as BACnet and some use of ModBus, the defacto standard for low | |||
| bandwith industry communication. Specially Modbus has been around | bandwith industry communication. Specially Modbus has been around | |||
| since the 1980 and is still the standard for talking to fans, heat | since the 1980 and is still the standard for talking to fans, heat | |||
| pumps, water purifying equipment and everything else delivering | pumps, water purifying equipment and everything else delivering | |||
| electricity, clean water and ventilation. | electricity, clean water and ventilation. | |||
| Example: Use of MS/TP for management of district heating | Example: Use of MS/TP for management of district heating | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 15 ¶ | |||
| fans have a correct speed and are switched off in case district | fans have a correct speed and are switched off in case district | |||
| heating fails to prevent cooling out the building and give certain | heating fails to prevent cooling out the building and give certain | |||
| commands in case smoke is detected. Speed is not important, in this | commands in case smoke is detected. Speed is not important, in this | |||
| usecase, 19,200 bit/s capable equipment is sold as high speed | usecase, 19,200 bit/s capable equipment is sold as high speed | |||
| communication capable. Reliability is important, this not working | communication capable. Reliability is important, this not working | |||
| will easily give millions of dollars of damage. Normally the setup | will easily give millions of dollars of damage. Normally the setup | |||
| is that the SCADA device asks a question to a specific controlling | is that the SCADA device asks a question to a specific controlling | |||
| device, gets an answer from the controlling device, asks a new | device, gets an answer from the controlling device, asks a new | |||
| question to some other device. | question to some other device. | |||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | A.4. Use case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer | |||
| o Topology: Bus, master-slave, token-passing. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: [TBD], normally single. | ||||
| o Data rate: Small data rate, frequent transmissions. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: Low. | ||||
| o Security requirements: Security must be provided, authentication | ||||
| is a must. | ||||
| o Mobility: Highly static | ||||
| o Time synchronization: Required. | ||||
| o Reliability and QOS: High, Alerts have to arrive properly, timing | ||||
| is not important. Implication of failing reliability has high | ||||
| probability for life-or-death implications (fire-alarms) or | ||||
| millions of dollars of liability (frozen water heating system in a | ||||
| high rise building) | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Constant sensor readings and asking devices for | ||||
| error reporting. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Nice to have, not very important. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P9 | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: Required. | ||||
| 6.5. Use case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer | ||||
| According to applications, various secured data can be handled and | According to applications, various secured data can be handled and | |||
| transferred. Depending on security level of the data, methods for | transferred. Depending on security level of the data, methods for | |||
| transfer can be alternatively selected. The personal data having | transfer can be alternatively selected. | |||
| serious issues should be transferred securely, but data transfer by | ||||
| using Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connections cannot always be secure because | ||||
| of their a little long radio frequency range. Hackers can overhear | ||||
| the personal data transfer behind hidden areas. Therefore, methods | ||||
| need to be alternatively selected to transfer secured data. Voice | ||||
| and video data, which are not respectively secure and requires long | ||||
| transmission range, can be transferred by 3G/4G technologies, such as | ||||
| WCDMA, GSM, and LTE. Big size data, which are not secure and | ||||
| requires high speed and broad bandwidth, can be transferred by Wi-Fi | ||||
| and wired network technologies. However, the personal data, which | ||||
| pose serious issues if mishandled while transferred in wireless | ||||
| domain, can be securely transferred by NFC technology. It has very | ||||
| short frequency range - nearly single touch communication. | ||||
| Example: Use of NFC for Secure Transfer in Healthcare Services with | Example: Use of NFC for Secure Transfer in Healthcare Services with | |||
| Tele-Assistance | Tele-Assistance | |||
| A senior citizen who lives alone wears one to several wearable 6lo | A senior citizen who lives alone wears one to several wearable 6lo | |||
| devices to measure heartbeat, pulse rate, etc. The 6lo devices are | devices to measure heartbeat, pulse rate, etc. The 6lo devices are | |||
| densely installed at home for movement detection. An LoWPAN Border | densely installed at home for movement detection. An LoWPAN Border | |||
| Router (LBR) at home will send the sensed information to a connected | Router (LBR) at home will send the sensed information to a connected | |||
| healthcare center. Portable base stations with LCDs may be used to | healthcare center. Portable base stations with LCDs may be used to | |||
| check the data at home, as well. Data is gathered in both periodic | check the data at home, as well. Data is gathered in both periodic | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 41 ¶ | |||
| be very time-critical. In addition, privacy also becomes a serious | be very time-critical. In addition, privacy also becomes a serious | |||
| issue in this case, as the sensed data is very personal. | issue in this case, as the sensed data is very personal. | |||
| While the senior citizen is provided audio and video healthcare | While the senior citizen is provided audio and video healthcare | |||
| services by a tele-assistance based on LTE connections, the senior | services by a tele-assistance based on LTE connections, the senior | |||
| citizen can alternatively use NFC connections to transfer the | citizen can alternatively use NFC connections to transfer the | |||
| personal sensed data to the tele-assistance. At this moment, hidden | personal sensed data to the tele-assistance. At this moment, hidden | |||
| hackers can overhear the data based on the LTE connection, but they | hackers can overhear the data based on the LTE connection, but they | |||
| cannot gather the personal data over the NFC connection. | cannot gather the personal data over the NFC connection. | |||
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | A.5. Use case of PLC: Smart Grid | |||
| |voice & video|....... LTE connection ......>|voice & video| | ||||
| | data |<...... LTE connection .......| data | | ||||
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | ||||
| | sensed data |....... NFC connection ......>| | | ||||
| | |<...... NFC connection .......| personal | | ||||
| | | | result data | | ||||
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | ||||
| (patient) (tele-assistance) | ||||
| Figure 1: Alternative Secure Transfer in Healthcare Services | ||||
| Dominant parameters in secure transfer by using NFC in healthcare | ||||
| services: | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. MP2P/P2MP (data | ||||
| collection), P2P (local diagnostic). | ||||
| o Topology: Small, NFC-enabled device connected to the Internet. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: NFC does not support L2-mesh, L3-mesh can be | ||||
| configured. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: a single hop for gateway; | ||||
| patient's body network is mesh topology. | ||||
| o Data rate: Small data rate. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: Low requirement. | ||||
| o Security requirements: Data privacy and security must be provided. | ||||
| Encryption is required. | ||||
| o Mobility: Moderate (patient's mobility). | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: Highly required. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: High level of reliability support (life-or- | ||||
| death implication), role-based. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Short data length and periodic (randomly). | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Highly required. | ||||
| o Other Issues: Plug-and-play configuration is required for mainly | ||||
| non-technical end-users. Real-time data acquisition and analysis | ||||
| are important. Efficient data management is needed for various | ||||
| devices that have different duty cycles, and for role-based data | ||||
| control. Reliability and robustness of the network are also | ||||
| essential. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: TBD. | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | ||||
| 6.6. Use case of LTE MTC: Gateway for Wireless Backhaul Network | ||||
| Wireless link layer technologies can be divided into short range | ||||
| connectivity and long range connectivity. BLE, ITU-T G.9959 | ||||
| (Z-Wave), DECT-ULE, MS/TP, NFC are used for short range connectivity. | ||||
| LTE MTC is used for long range connectivity. And there is another | ||||
| long range connectivity technology. It is LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area | ||||
| Network) technology such as LoRa, Sigfox, Wi-Sun etc. Therefore, the | ||||
| use case of LTE MTC could be used in LPWAN. | ||||
| Example: Use of LTE MTC for LoRa gateway | ||||
| LoRa is one of the most promising technology of LPWAN. LoRa network | ||||
| architecture has a star of star topology. LoRa gateway relay the | ||||
| messages from LoRa end device to application server and vice versa. | ||||
| LoRa gateway can have two types of backhaul, wired and wireless | ||||
| backhaul. | ||||
| If a LoRa gateway has wireless backhaul, it should have LTE modem. | ||||
| Since the modem cost of LTE MTC is cheaper than the modem cost of | ||||
| above LTE category 2, it is helpful to design to use LTE MTC. | ||||
| Moreover, the maximum date rate of LoRa end device is 50kbps, it is | ||||
| sufficient to use LTE MTC without using category 2. | ||||
| Dominant parameters in LoRa gateway scenarios in above example: | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: Star topology. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: No. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: Single subnet. | ||||
| o Data rate: Depends on 3GPP specification. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: High requirement. | ||||
| o Security requirements: No, because data security is already | ||||
| provided in LoRa specification. | ||||
| o Mobility: Static. | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: Highly required. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: TBD. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Random. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Required. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P9 (Always-on). | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | ||||
| Example: Use of LTE MTC for controlling car | ||||
| Car sharing services are becoming more popular. Customers wish to | ||||
| control the car with smart phone application. For example, customers | ||||
| wish to lock/unlock the car door with smart phone application, | ||||
| because customers may not have a car key. Customers wish to blow | ||||
| with smart phone application to locate the car easily. | ||||
| Therefore, rental car should have a long range connectivity capable | ||||
| modem such as LoRa end device and LTE UE. However, LoRa may not be | ||||
| used because LoRa has low reliability and may not be supported in an | ||||
| indoor environment such as a basement parking lot. And since message | ||||
| size for car control is very small, it is sufficient to use LTE MTC | ||||
| instead of category 2. | ||||
| Dominant parameters in controlling car scenarios in above example: | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: Star topology. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: No. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: Single subnet. | ||||
| o Data rate: Depends on 3GPP specification. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: High requirement. | ||||
| o Security requirements: High requirement. | ||||
| o Mobility: Always dynamic . | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: Highly required. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: TBD. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Random. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Required. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P1 (Low-power). | ||||
| 6.7. Use case of PLC: Smart Grid | ||||
| Smart grid concept is based on numerous operational and energy | Smart grid concept is based on numerous operational and energy | |||
| measuring sub-systems of an electric grid. It comprises of multiple | measuring sub-systems of an electric grid. It comprises of multiple | |||
| administrative levels/segments to provide connectivity among these | administrative levels/segments to provide connectivity among these | |||
| numerous components. Last mile connectivity is established over LV | numerous components. Last mile connectivity is established over LV | |||
| segment, whereas connectivity over electricity distribution takes | segment, whereas connectivity over electricity distribution takes | |||
| place in HV segment. | place in HV segment. | |||
| Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in Smart | Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in Smart | |||
| Grid (Advance Metering Infrastructure - AMI, Demand Response - DR, | Grid (Advance Metering Infrastructure - AMI, Demand Response - DR, | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 52 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 32 ¶ | |||
| actions like notification of electricity charges according to the | actions like notification of electricity charges according to the | |||
| commands from the utility company. | commands from the utility company. | |||
| With the existing power line infrastructure as communication medium, | With the existing power line infrastructure as communication medium, | |||
| cost on building up the PLC network is naturally saved, and more | cost on building up the PLC network is naturally saved, and more | |||
| importantly, labor operational costs can be minimized from a long- | importantly, labor operational costs can be minimized from a long- | |||
| term perspective. Furthermore, this AMI application speeds up | term perspective. Furthermore, this AMI application speeds up | |||
| electricity charge, reduces losses by restraining power theft and | electricity charge, reduces losses by restraining power theft and | |||
| helps to manage the health of the grid based on line loss analysis. | helps to manage the health of the grid based on line loss analysis. | |||
| Dominant parameters in smart grid scenarios with PLC: | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: Tree topology. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: No. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: Single subnet. | ||||
| o Data rate: Small data rate, infrequent transmissions. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: Low requirement. | ||||
| o Security requirements: Data privacy and security must be provided. | ||||
| Encryption is required. | ||||
| o Mobility: Static. | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: Low requirement. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: a relatively low ratio of message losses is | ||||
| acceptable for periodic meter readings. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: Periodic (upstream meter reading notifications | ||||
| sent by the meter) and aperiodic (utility company-triggered | ||||
| downstream queries and messages to the meter such as notification | ||||
| of electricity charges or leak detection). | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: Required. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: Mix of P1 (Low Power) devices and P9 (Always- | ||||
| on) devices. | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | ||||
| Example: Use of PLC (IEEE1901.1) for WASA in Smart Grid | Example: Use of PLC (IEEE1901.1) for WASA in Smart Grid | |||
| Many sub-systems of Smart Grid require low data rate and narrowband | Many sub-systems of Smart Grid require low data rate and narrowband | |||
| variant (IEEE1901.2) of PLC fulfils such requirements. Recently, | variant (IEEE1901.2) of PLC fulfils such requirements. Recently, | |||
| more complex scenarios are emerging that require higher data rates. | more complex scenarios are emerging that require higher data rates. | |||
| (see Table 3). | ||||
| +--------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------+ | ||||
| | Sub System | Security | Bandwidth | Reliability | Latency | | ||||
| +--------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------+ | ||||
| | HEMS | High | 9.6-56kbps | 99% | <2000ms | | ||||
| | | | | | | | ||||
| | AMI-Node | High | 10-100kbps | 99% | <200ms | | ||||
| | | | | | | | ||||
| | AMI-Backhaul | High | 500kbps | 99% | <200ms | | ||||
| | | | | | | | ||||
| | WASA | High | 600-1500kbps | 99% | <200ms | | ||||
| +--------------+----------+--------------+-------------+---------+ | ||||
| Table 3: Some Sub Systems of Smart Grid | ||||
| WASA sub-system is an appropriate example that collects large amount | WASA sub-system is an appropriate example that collects large amount | |||
| of information about the current state of the grid over wide area | of information about the current state of the grid over wide area | |||
| from electric substations as well as power transmission lines. The | from electric substations as well as power transmission lines. The | |||
| collected feedback is used for monitoring, controlling and protecting | collected feedback is used for monitoring, controlling and protecting | |||
| all the sub-systems. | all the sub-systems. | |||
| Dominant parameters in WASA scenario with above example: | A.6. Use case of IEEE 802.15.4e: Industrial Automation | |||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: TBD. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: TBD. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: TBD. | ||||
| o Data rate: TBD. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: TBD. | ||||
| o Security requirements: TBD. | ||||
| o Mobility: TBD. | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: TBD. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: TBD. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: TBD. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: TBD. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P9 (Always-on). | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | ||||
| 6.8. Use case of IEEE 802.15.4e: Industrial Automation | ||||
| Typical scenario of Industrial Automation where sensor and actuators | Typical scenario of Industrial Automation where sensor and actuators | |||
| are connected through the time-slotted radio access (IEEE 802.15.4e). | are connected through the time-slotted radio access (IEEE 802.15.4e). | |||
| For that, there will be a point-to-point control signal exchange in | For that, there will be a point-to-point control signal exchange in | |||
| between sensors and actuators to trigger the critical control | between sensors and actuators to trigger the critical control | |||
| information. In such scenarios, point-to-point traffic flows are | information. In such scenarios, point-to-point traffic flows are | |||
| significant to exchange the controlled information in between sensors | significant to exchange the controlled information in between sensors | |||
| and actuators within the constrained networks. | and actuators within the constrained networks. | |||
| Example: Use of IEEE 802.15.4e for P2P communication in closed-loop | Example: Use of IEEE 802.15.4e for P2P communication in closed-loop | |||
| skipping to change at page 24, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 24 ¶ | |||
| proposed to provide distributed neighbor-to-neighbor and end-to-end | proposed to provide distributed neighbor-to-neighbor and end-to-end | |||
| resource reservations, respectively for traffic flows in | resource reservations, respectively for traffic flows in | |||
| deterministic networks (6TiSCH). | deterministic networks (6TiSCH). | |||
| The potential scenarios that can make use of the end-to-end resource | The potential scenarios that can make use of the end-to-end resource | |||
| reservations can be in health-care and industrial applications. | reservations can be in health-care and industrial applications. | |||
| AODV-RPL and SF0/SF1 are the significant routing and resource | AODV-RPL and SF0/SF1 are the significant routing and resource | |||
| reservation protocols for closed-loop applications in constrained | reservation protocols for closed-loop applications in constrained | |||
| networks. | networks. | |||
| Dominant parameters in P2P scenarios with above example: | ||||
| o Deployment/Bootstrapping: Pre-planned. | ||||
| o Topology: TBD. | ||||
| o L2-mesh or L3-mesh: TBD. | ||||
| o Multi-link subnet, single subnet: TBD. | ||||
| o Data rate: TBD. | ||||
| o Buffering requirements: TBD. | ||||
| o Security requirements: TBD. | ||||
| o Mobility: TBD. | ||||
| o Time Synchronization: TBD. | ||||
| o Reliability and QoS: TBD. | ||||
| o Traffic patterns: TBD. | ||||
| o Security Bootstrapping: TBD. | ||||
| o Power use strategy: P9 (Always-on). | ||||
| o Update firmware requirements: TBD. | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations | ||||
| There are no IANA considerations related to this document. | ||||
| 8. Security Considerations | ||||
| [TBD] | ||||
| 9. Acknowledgements | ||||
| Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government | ||||
| (Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte) through the Jose | ||||
| Castillejo grant CAS15/00336. His contribution to this work has been | ||||
| carried out in part during his stay as a visiting scholar at the | ||||
| Computer Laboratory of the University of Cambridge. | ||||
| Samita Chakrabarti, Thomas Watteyne, Pascal Thubert, Xavier | ||||
| Vilajosana, Daniel Migault, and Jianqiang HOU have provided valuable | ||||
| feedback for this draft. | ||||
| 10. References | ||||
| 10.1. Normative References | ||||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | ||||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | ||||
| [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 | ||||
| over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): | ||||
| Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", | ||||
| RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>. | ||||
| [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, | ||||
| "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 | ||||
| Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. | ||||
| [RFC5826] Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation | ||||
| Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", | ||||
| RFC 5826, DOI 10.17487/RFC5826, April 2010, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5826>. | ||||
| [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 | ||||
| Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. | ||||
| [RFC6568] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., and JP. Vasseur, "Design and | ||||
| Application Spaces for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless | ||||
| Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6568, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6568, April 2012, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6568>. | ||||
| [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. | ||||
| Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over | ||||
| Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", | ||||
| RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. | ||||
| [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for | ||||
| Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. | ||||
| [RFC7428] Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets | ||||
| over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", RFC 7428, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7428, February 2015, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7428>. | ||||
| [RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B., | ||||
| Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low | ||||
| Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>. | ||||
| [RFC8036] Cam-Winget, N., Ed., Hui, J., and D. Popa, "Applicability | ||||
| Statement for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy | ||||
| Networks (RPL) in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) | ||||
| Networks", RFC 8036, DOI 10.17487/RFC8036, January 2017, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8036>. | ||||
| 10.2. Informative References | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6lo-dect-ule] | ||||
| Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Shelby, Z., Logt, M., and D. | ||||
| Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low | ||||
| Energy", draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-07 (work in progress), | ||||
| October 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6lo-6lobac] | ||||
| Lynn, K., Martocci, J., Neilson, C., and S. Donaldson, | ||||
| "Transmission of IPv6 over MS/TP Networks", draft-ietf- | ||||
| 6lo-6lobac-05 (work in progress), June 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc] | ||||
| Choi, Y., Youn, J., and Y. Hong, "Transmission of IPv6 | ||||
| Packets over Near Field Communication", draft-ietf-6lo- | ||||
| nfc-05 (work in progress), October 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-lwig-energy-efficient] | ||||
| Gomez, C., Kovatsch, M., Tian, H., and Z. Cao, "Energy- | ||||
| Efficient Features of Internet of Things Protocols", | ||||
| draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-05 (work in progress), | ||||
| October 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-roll-aodv-rpl] | ||||
| Anamalamudi, S., Zhang, M., Sangi, A., Perkins, C., and S. | ||||
| Anand, "Asymmetric AODV-P2P-RPL in Low-Power and Lossy | ||||
| Networks (LLNs)", draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-00 (work in | ||||
| progress), December 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0] | ||||
| Dujovne, D., Grieco, L., Palattella, M., and N. Accettura, | ||||
| "6TiSCH 6top Scheduling Function Zero (SF0)", draft-ietf- | ||||
| 6tisch-6top-sf0-02 (work in progress), October 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.satish-6tisch-6top-sf1] | ||||
| Anamalamudi, S., Zhang, M., Sangi, A., Perkins, C., and S. | ||||
| Anand, "Scheduling Function One (SF1) for hop-by-hop | ||||
| Scheduling in 6tisch Networks", draft-satish-6tisch-6top- | ||||
| sf1-02 (work in progress), August 2016. | ||||
| [G.9959] "International Telecommunication Union, "Short range | ||||
| narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers - PHY | ||||
| and MAC layer specifications", ITU-T Recommendation", | ||||
| January 2015. | ||||
| [LTE_MTC] "3GPP TS 36.306 V13.0.0, 3rd Generation Partnership | ||||
| Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access | ||||
| Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access | ||||
| (E-UTRA); User Equipment (UE) radio access capabilities | ||||
| (Release 13)", December 2015. | ||||
| [IEEE1901] | ||||
| "IEEE Standard, IEEE Std. 1901-2010 - IEEE Standard for | ||||
| Broadband over Power Line Networks: Medium Access Control | ||||
| and Physical Layer Specifications", 2010, | ||||
| <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ | ||||
| standard/1901-2010.html>. | ||||
| [IEEE1901.1] | ||||
| "IEEE Standard (work-in-progress), IEEE-SA Standards | ||||
| Board", <http://sites.ieee.org/sagroups-1901-1/>. | ||||
| [IEEE1901.2] | ||||
| "IEEE Standard, IEEE Std. 1901.2-2013 - IEEE Standard for | ||||
| Low-Frequency (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line | ||||
| Communications for Smart Grid Applications", 2013, | ||||
| <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ | ||||
| standard/1901.2-2013.html>. | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Yong-Geun Hong | Yong-Geun Hong | |||
| ETRI | ETRI | |||
| 161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu | 161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu | |||
| Daejeon 305-700 | Daejeon 305-700 | |||
| Korea | Korea | |||
| Phone: +82 42 860 6557 | Phone: +82 42 860 6557 | |||
| Email: yghong@etri.re.kr | Email: yghong@etri.re.kr | |||
| skipping to change at page 29, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 26, line 23 ¶ | |||
| Deoknyong Ko | Deoknyong Ko | |||
| SKtelecom | SKtelecom | |||
| 9-1 Byundang-gu Sunae-dong, Seongnam-si | 9-1 Byundang-gu Sunae-dong, Seongnam-si | |||
| Gyeonggi-do 13595 | Gyeonggi-do 13595 | |||
| Korea | Korea | |||
| Phone: +82 10 3356 8052 | Phone: +82 10 3356 8052 | |||
| Email: engineer@sk.com | Email: engineer@sk.com | |||
| Abdur Rashid Sangi | Abdur Rashid Sangi | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Individual Contributor | |||
| No.156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District | ||||
| Beijing 100095 | ||||
| P.R. China | ||||
| Email: rashid.sangi@huawei.com | Email: sangi_bahrian@yahoo.com | |||
| Take Aanstoot | Take Aanstoot | |||
| Modio AB | Modio AB | |||
| S:t Larsgatan 15, 582 24 | S:t Larsgatan 15, 582 24 | |||
| Linkoping | Linkoping | |||
| Sweden | Sweden | |||
| Email: take@modio.se | Email: take@modio.se | |||
| Samita Chakrabarti | ||||
| San Jose, CA | ||||
| USA | ||||
| Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com | ||||
| End of changes. 83 change blocks. | ||||
| 779 lines changed or deleted | 630 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/ | ||||