idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 25, 2014) is 3744 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 363, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6550' is defined on line 368, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Richardson 3 Internet-Draft SSW 4 Intended status: Informational January 25, 2014 5 Expires: July 29, 2014 7 ROLL Applicability Statement Template 8 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-04 10 Abstract 12 This document is a template applicability statement for the Routing 13 over Low-power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) WG. This document is not 14 for publication, but rather is to be used as a template. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2014. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 1.3. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 1.4. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 4 60 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication 61 paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 4 63 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 4 64 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 4 65 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . 4 66 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 85 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 5 86 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 87 4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 88 5. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 89 5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 7 90 5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 91 5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 92 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 93 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 94 7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 7 95 7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 8 96 7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . 8 97 8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 98 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 99 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 100 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 101 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 102 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 103 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 105 1. Introduction 107 This document describes a series of questions which should be 108 answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft. 110 The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use 111 the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability 112 statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum. 114 1.1. Requirements Language 116 (RFC2119 reference) 118 1.2. Terminology 120 A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A 121 reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any 122 terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here. 124 1.3. Required Reading 126 References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry 127 group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical, 128 should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group 129 participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues) 131 1.4. Out of scope requirements 133 This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations 134 where things are not in scope for this document. 136 (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered 137 urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks, 138 and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three 139 or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what 140 this document covers) 142 2. Deployment Scenario 143 2.1. Network Topologies 145 describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a 146 single utility would employ. 148 2.2. Traffic Characteristics 150 Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is 151 initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.) 152 are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about 153 authentication and authorization in those protocols. 155 2.2.1. General 157 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm 159 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm 161 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm 163 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm 165 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast 167 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm 169 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. 171 Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if 172 there are options, they should be listed generally here, and 173 specifically in section 4.2. 175 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements 177 This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in 178 this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are 179 expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is 180 understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be 181 explained, perhaps with images references from other publications. 183 This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a 184 simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to 185 construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to 186 validate an implementation. 188 4. RPL Profile 189 This section should list the various features of RPL plus other 190 layers of the LLN, and how they will be used. 192 4.1. RPL Features 194 4.1.1. RPL Instances 196 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode 198 4.1.3. DAO Policy 200 4.1.4. Path Metrics 202 4.1.5. Objective Function 204 4.1.6. DODAG Repair 206 4.1.7. Multicast 208 4.1.8. Security 210 4.1.9. P2P communications 212 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration 214 4.2. Layer-2 features 216 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 218 this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology 219 that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally 220 not acceptable. 222 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 224 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. 226 4.2.4. MLE and other things 228 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 230 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters 232 This section is intended to document the specific value (or ranges) 233 appropriate for this kind of deployment. This includes trickle 234 specific parameters such as those of RFC6550, section 8.3.1: Imin 235 (DIOInternvalMin), Imax (DIOIntrevalDoublings), and k 236 (DIORedundancyConstant). While it is not necessary to hard code 237 these parameters into RPL nodes, as they are announced as part of the 238 DIO message, it is important for researchers who are trying to 239 validate the convergence properties of the resulting deployment to 240 understand what values have been selected. 242 4.3.2. Other Parameters 244 There are additional values which are present in the DODAG 245 Configuration option. The purpose of this section is to: a) document 246 what values are configured, b) if a default value is used, if it is 247 appropriate for this deployment. 249 These values include: MaxRankIncrease, MinHopRankIncrease, the 250 Objective Code Point to use, Default Lifetime, Lifetime Units... 252 In addition, the kinds of metrics which will be used (RFC6551) needs 253 to be specified. If Objective Function 0 (RFC6552) is used, then it 254 specifies a number of values, but also needs definitions of the 255 stretch_of_rank, and rank_factor. 257 If MRHOF (RFC6719) is used, then section 5 of this document requires 258 selection of: MAX_LINK_METRIC, MAX_PATH_COST, 259 PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, PARENT_SET_SIZE, and ALLOW_FLOATING_ROOT. 261 5. MPL Profile 263 This section should list the various features of MPL. In considering 264 the parameters, a number of questions come up: 266 1) What are the maximum and minimum 1-hop MPL router neighbours of 267 all the MPL routers? 269 2) what is the arrival rate of new packets that need repetition in 270 a MPL router 272 3) Is there a deadline associated with the packets 274 4) What is the shortest number of hops of the longest path between 275 sources and destinations 277 5) What are the values of the MAC: back-off values, retries, 278 buffer size. 280 6) What is the background load of other non MPL applications. 282 7) arrival probability of 1-hop packets 283 As the corresponding design space is incredibly large, probably only 284 a limited subset of the design space is viable. 286 Here is an example scenario: 288 o 5 neighbours 290 o once every 100 ms (rate at sources is once every 300-500 ms) 292 o yes, 200 ms 294 o 5 hops, with mostly 1 hop 296 o no buffer, retry 1, back-off 2 298 o absent 300 o 100-80% 302 leading to k=3-5, Imin =30-70 ms, repeat = 2, Imax n/a. 304 It is crital operational boundary conditions together with 305 appropriate MPL parameter values are published in this applicability 306 statements. All applicability statements together may give a good 307 hint which MPL parameters and boundary conditions to choose. 309 5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 311 5.1.1. Trickle Parameters 313 5.1.1.1. Imin 315 5.1.1.2. Imax 317 5.1.2. Other Parameters 319 5.1.2.1. Hot Limit 321 6. Manageability Considerations 323 7. Security Considerations 325 7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment 326 (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, 327 initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in 328 a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like http:// 329 www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/ 330 CullenJennings.pdf) 332 7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment 334 (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the 335 dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes 336 removed if they are compromised) 338 7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses 340 (When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may 341 have different security needs.) 343 8. Other Related Protocols 345 9. IANA Considerations 347 10. Acknowledgements 349 This document was created from a number source applicatbility 350 templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, draft- 351 phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt. 353 The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security 354 Directorate. 356 A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including 357 the MPL considerations/calculations 359 11. References 361 11.1. Normative References 363 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 364 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 366 11.2. Informative References 368 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., 369 Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. 370 Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and 371 Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 373 Author's Address 375 Michael C. Richardson 376 Sandelman Software Works 377 470 Dawson Avenue 378 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 379 CA 381 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 382 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/