idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-09.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 3, 2016) is 2914 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 389, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6206' is defined on line 402, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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 May 3, 2016 5 Expires: November 4, 2016 7 ROLL Applicability Statement Template 8 draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template-09 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 November 4, 2016. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2016 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. Relationship to other documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 1.4. Required Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 1.5. Out of scope requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.1. Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.2. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm . . . . . . . 4 61 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication 62 paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm . . . . . . 5 64 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm . . . 5 65 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast . . . . 5 66 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm . . . . 5 67 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 4. RPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4.1. RPL Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4.1.1. RPL Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.1.3. DAO Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 4.1.4. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 4.1.5. Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 4.1.6. DODAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 4.1.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 4.1.8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 4.1.9. P2P communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 4.2. Layer-2 features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 84 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 4.2.4. MLE and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 86 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 6 87 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 88 4.3.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 89 5. MPL Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 90 5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges . . . . . . 8 91 5.1.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 5.1.2. Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 93 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 94 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 95 7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment . . . . 8 96 7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment . . 8 97 7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses . . . . . . . . . . 8 98 8. Other Related Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 99 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 100 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 101 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 102 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 103 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 104 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 106 1. Introduction 108 This document describes a series of questions which should be 109 answered. This document is intended to remain as a Internet Draft. 111 The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use 112 the table of contents provided. The goal is that all applicability 113 statements will have to cover the listed items as a minimum. 115 1.1. Relationship to other documents 117 EDITORIAL: The following should appear in all applicability 118 statements: 120 ROLL has specified a set of routing protocols for Lossy and Low- 121 resource Networks (LLN) [RFC6550]. This applicability text describes 122 a subset of these protocols and the conditions which make the subset 123 the correct choice. The text recommends and motivates the 124 accompanying parameter value ranges. Multiple applicability domains 125 are recognized including: Building and Home, and Advanced Metering 126 Infrastructure. The applicability domains distinguish themselves in 127 the way they are operated, their performance requirements, and the 128 most probable network structures. Each applicability statement 129 identifies the distinguishing properties according to a common set of 130 subjects described in as many sections. 132 A common set of security threats are described in [RFC7416]. The 133 applicability statements complement the security threats document by 134 describing preferred security settings and solutions within the 135 applicability statement conditions. This applicability statements 136 may recommend more light weight security solutions and specify the 137 conditions under which these solutions are appropriate. 139 1.2. Requirements Language 141 (RFC2119 reference) 143 1.3. Terminology 145 A reference to draft-ietf-roll-terminology is appropriate. A 146 reference to layer-2 specific terminology and/or inclusion of any 147 terms that are normatively referenced is appropriate here. 149 1.4. Required Reading 151 References/Overview of requirements documents, both IETF and industry 152 group. (two pages maximum. This text should be (very) technical, 153 should be aimed at IETF *participants*, not industry group 154 participants, and should explain this industries' specific issues) 156 1.5. Out of scope requirements 158 This should list other documents (if any) which deal with situations 159 where things are not in scope for this document. 161 (For instance, the AMI document tries to cover both line-powered 162 urban metering networks, and energy-constrained metering networks, 163 and also tries to deal with rural requirements. This should be three 164 or four documents, so this section should list the limits of what 165 this document covers) 167 2. Deployment Scenario 169 2.1. Network Topologies 171 describe a single scenario, with possibly multiple topologies that a 172 single utility would employ. 174 2.2. Traffic Characteristics 176 Explain what kind of traffic is being transmitted, where it is 177 initiated, and what kinds of protocols (CoAP, multicast, HTTPS, etc.) 178 are being used. Explain what assumptions are being made about 179 authentication and authorization in those protocols. 181 2.2.1. General 183 2.2.2. Source-sink (SS) communication paradigm 185 2.2.3. Publish-subscribe (PS, or pub/sub) communication paradigm 186 2.2.4. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication paradigm 188 2.2.5. Peer-to-multipeer (P2MP) communication paradigm 190 2.2.6. Additional considerations: Duocast and N-cast 192 2.2.7. RPL applicability per communication paradigm 194 2.3. Layer-2 applicability. 196 Explain what layer-2 technologies this statement applies to, and if 197 there are options, they should be listed generally here, and 198 specifically in section 4.2. 200 3. Using RPL to Meet Functional Requirements 202 This should explain in general terms how RPL is going to be used in 203 this network topology. If trees that are multiple layers deep are 204 expected, then this should be described so that the fan out is 205 understood. Some sample topologies (from simulations) should be 206 explained, perhaps with images references from other publications. 208 This section should tell an *implementer* in a lab, having a 209 simulation tool or a building/city/etc. to use as a testbed, how to 210 construct an LLN of sufficient complexity (but not too much) to 211 validate an implementation. 213 4. RPL Profile 215 This section should list the various features of RPL plus other 216 layers of the LLN, and how they will be used. 218 4.1. RPL Features 220 4.1.1. RPL Instances 222 4.1.2. Storing vs. Non-Storing Mode 224 4.1.3. DAO Policy 226 4.1.4. Path Metrics 228 4.1.5. Objective Function 229 4.1.6. DODAG Repair 231 4.1.7. Multicast 233 4.1.8. Security 235 4.1.9. P2P communications 237 4.1.10. IPv6 address configuration 239 4.2. Layer-2 features 241 4.2.1. Specifics about layer-2 243 this section should detail the specific layer-2 network technology 244 that this document applies to. A class of technologies is generally 245 not acceptable. 247 4.2.2. Services provided at layer-2 249 4.2.3. 6LowPAN options assumed. 251 4.2.4. MLE and other things 253 4.3. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 255 4.3.1. Trickle Parameters 257 This section is intended to document the specific value (or ranges) 258 appropriate for this kind of deployment. This includes trickle 259 specific parameters such as those of RFC6550, section 8.3.1: Imin 260 (DIOInternvalMin), Imax (DIOIntrevalDoublings), and k 261 (DIORedundancyConstant). While it is not necessary to hard code 262 these parameters into RPL nodes, as they are announced as part of the 263 DIO message, it is important for researchers who are trying to 264 validate the convergence properties of the resulting deployment to 265 understand what values have been selected. 267 4.3.2. Other Parameters 269 There are additional values which are present in the DODAG 270 Configuration option. The purpose of this section is to: a) document 271 what values are configured, b) if a default value is used, if it is 272 appropriate for this deployment. 274 These values include: MaxRankIncrease, MinHopRankIncrease, the 275 Objective Code Point to use, Default Lifetime, Lifetime Units... 277 In addition, the kinds of metrics which will be used (RFC6551) needs 278 to be specified. If Objective Function 0 (RFC6552) is used, then it 279 specifies a number of values, but also needs definitions of the 280 stretch_of_rank, and rank_factor. 282 If MRHOF (RFC6719) is used, then section 5 of this document requires 283 selection of: MAX_LINK_METRIC, MAX_PATH_COST, 284 PARENT_SWITCH_THRESHOLD, PARENT_SET_SIZE, and ALLOW_FLOATING_ROOT. 286 5. MPL Profile 288 This section should list the various features of MPL. In considering 289 the parameters, a number of questions come up: 291 1) What are the maximum and minimum 1-hop MPL router neighbours of 292 all the MPL routers? 294 2) what is the arrival rate of new packets that need repetition in 295 a MPL router 297 3) Is there a deadline associated with the packets 299 4) What is the shortest number of hops of the longest path between 300 sources and destinations 302 5) What are the values of the MAC: back-off values, retries, 303 buffer size. 305 6) What is the background load of other non MPL applications. 307 7) arrival probability of 1-hop packets 309 As the corresponding design space is incredibly large, probably only 310 a limited subset of the design space is viable. 312 Here is an example scenario: 314 o 5 neighbours 316 o once every 100 ms (rate at sources is once every 300-500 ms) 318 o yes, 200 ms 320 o 5 hops, with mostly 1 hop 322 o no buffer, retry 1, back-off 2 324 o absent 325 o 100-80% 327 leading to k=3-5, Imin =30-70 ms, repeat = 2, Imax n/a. 329 It is crital operational boundary conditions together with 330 appropriate MPL parameter values are published in this applicability 331 statements. All applicability statements together may give a good 332 hint which MPL parameters and boundary conditions to choose. 334 5.1. Recommended Configuration Defaults and Ranges 336 5.1.1. Trickle Parameters 338 5.1.1.1. Imin 340 5.1.1.2. Imax 342 5.1.2. Other Parameters 344 5.1.2.1. Hot Limit 346 6. Manageability Considerations 348 7. Security Considerations 350 7.1. Security Considerations during initial deployment 352 (This section explains how nodes get their initial trust anchors, 353 initial network keys. It explains if this happens at the factory, in 354 a deployment truck, if it is done in the field, perhaps like 355 http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/ 356 CullenJennings.pdf) 358 7.2. Security Considerations during incremental deployment 360 (This section explains how that replaces a failed node takes on the 361 dead nodes' identity, or not. How are nodes retired. How are nodes 362 removed if they are compromised) 364 7.3. Security Considerations for P2P uses 366 (When layer-3 RPL security is used, P2P DODAGs are ephemeral, and may 367 have different security needs.) 369 8. Other Related Protocols 371 9. IANA Considerations 373 10. Acknowledgements 375 This document was created from a number source applicatbility 376 templates, including draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-06.txt, draft- 377 phinney-rpl-industrial-applicability-00.txt. 379 The document has benefitted from advance review by the IETF Security 380 Directorate. 382 A number of edits were contributed from Peter van der Stok, including 383 the MPL considerations/calculations 385 11. References 387 11.1. Normative References 389 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 390 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 391 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 392 . 394 [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., 395 and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for 396 the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks 397 (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, 398 . 400 11.2. Informative References 402 [RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, 403 "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206, 404 March 2011, . 406 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., 407 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, 408 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for 409 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, 410 DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, 411 . 413 Author's Address 415 Michael C. Richardson 416 Sandelman Software Works 417 470 Dawson Avenue 418 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 419 CA 421 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 422 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/