One document matched: draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-05.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" updates="6437" docName="draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-05" -->
<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-05">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc authorship="yes"?>
<?rfc tocappendix="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<front>
<title>The IPv6 Flow Label within a LLN domain</title>
<author initials="P" surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert" role="editor">
<organization abbrev="Cisco">
Cisco Systems
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Village d'Entreprises Green Side</street>
<street>400, Avenue de Roumanille</street>
<street>Batiment T3</street>
<city>Biot - Sophia Antipolis</city>
<code>06410</code>
<country>FRANCE</country>
</postal>
<phone>+33 4 97 23 26 34</phone>
<email>pthubert@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<!--author fullname="Michael Richardson" initials="M.C." surname="Richardson">
<organization abbrev="Sandelman">
Sandelman Software Works
</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street> </street>
<city>Ottawa</city>
<region>Ontario</region>
<code> </code>
<country>Canada</country>
</postal>
<email>mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca</email>
</address>
</author-->
<date/>
<area>Routing</area>
<workgroup>6MAN</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>
This document presents how the Flow Label can be used inside a LLN domain
such as a RPL domain or an ISA100.11a D-subnet, and provides updated rules
for a domain Border Router to set and reset the Flow Label when forwarding
between inside the domain and the larger Internet in both direction. Rules
for routers inside the domain are also provided.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<section anchor='introduction' title="Introduction">
<t> The design of Lowpower Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally focussed on
saving energy, which is typically the most constrained resource of all.
Other classical constraints, such as memory capacity, frame size, as well
as the duty cycling of the LLN devices, derive from that primary concern.
</t> <t>
In isolated devices, energy is typically available
from batteries that are expected to last for years, or scavenged from the
environment in very limited quantities. Any protocol that is intended for
use in LLNs must be designed with the primary concern of saving energy as
a strict requirement.
</t> <t>
The <xref target="IEEE802154"> IEEE802.15.4</xref> was designed to
offer the Physical (PHY) and Medium Access Control (MAC) layers for
low-cost, low-speed, low-power Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs),
which are a wireless form of LLNs.
</t> <t>
With the traditional IEEE802.15.4 PHY, frames are limited to 127
octets. In order to adapt <xref target="RFC2460"> IPv6 </xref> over
IEEE802.15.4, <xref target="RFC4944">6LoWPAN </xref> introduced a
fragmentation mechanism under IP, which in turn causes even more energy
spending and other issues as discussed in
<xref target="I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments">LLN Fragment Forwarding
and Recovery</xref>.
</t> <t>
The IEEE802.15.4e Task Group further defined the
<xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch"> TimeSlotted Channel Hopping</xref>
(TSCH) mode of operation as an update to the MAC specification
in order to address Time Sensitive applications.
</t> <t>
The <xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture">6TISCH
architecture</xref> specifies the operation of IPv6 over IEEE802.15.4e
TSCH networks attached and synchronized by backbone routers.
6TiSCH was created to simplify the adoption of IETF technology by other
Standard Defining Organizations (SDOs), in particular in the Industrial
Automation space, which already relies on variations of IEEE802.15.4e
TSCH for Wireless Sensor Networking.
</t> <t>
The <xref target="ISA100.11a">ISA100.11a</xref> specification provides
an example of such an industrial WSN standard, using a precursor to
IEEE802.15.4e over the classical IEEE802.14.5 PHY. In that case, after
security is applied, roughly 80 octets are available per frame for
IP and Payload. In order to 1) avoid fragmentation and 2) conserve
energy, the ISA100 WG in charge of that specification did scrutinize
the use of every bit in the frame and rejected any perceived waste.
</t>
<t>
The challenge to obtain the adoption of IPv6 in the original standard
was thus to save all possible bits in the frames, including the UDP
checksum which was an interesting discussion on its own. This work was
actually one of the roots for the <xref target="RFC6282"> 6LoWPAN
Header Compression </xref> work, which goes down to the individual bits
to save space in the frames for actual data, and allowed ISA100.11a to
adopt IPv6.
</t> <t>
ISA100.11a (now IEC62734) uses IPv6 over UDP, and conforms to a number
of other IETF RFCs including the <xref target="RFC3697">IPv6 Flow Label
Specification </xref> that was the reference at the time the standard
was elaborated, but fails to conform to the newer
<xref target="RFC6437">IPv6 Flow Label Specification</xref> that
obsoleted it.
</t> <t>
The bone of contention is the use of the Flow Label as an index called
a contract ID, and the capability for the Backbone Router, that is the
Border Router of a ISA100.11a WSN (also called a D-subnet), to modify
the Flow Label. There is work at ROLL that indicates that RPL nodes may
benefit from similar abilities to also transport flow-related
information in the Flow Label.
</t> <t> This document adds an exception to the
rules in <xref target="RFC6437"/>, for application within a
well-defined LLN domain, whereby the Border Routers would be in a
position to ensure that from an external viewpoint, the domain complies
to the new Flow Label specification even though the internal use of the
Flow Label does not.
</t>
</section>
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<!-- **************************************************************** -->
<section title="Terminology">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
<t>This document uses Terminology defined in
<xref target="RFC7102">Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks</xref>, as well as
<xref target="RFC6550"/> and <xref target="RFC6553"/>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor='reqs' title="Requirements for LLN Flows">
<t>
In Industrial Automation and Control Systems (IACS) <xref target="RFC5673"/>,
a packet loss is usually acceptable but jitter and latency must be
strictly controlled as they can play a critical role in the interpretation
of the measured information.
Sensory systems are often distributed, and the control information can
in fact be originated from multiple sources and aggregated.
In such cases, related packets from multiple
sources should not be load-balanced along their path in the Internet.
</t>
<t>
In a typical LLN application, the bulk of the traffic consists of small
chunks of data (in the order few bytes to a few tens of bytes) at a time.
4Hz is a typical loop frequency in Process Control, though it can be a
lot slower than that in, say, environmental monitoring. The granularity
of traffic from a single source is too small to make a lot of sense in
load balancing application.
</t>
<t>
As a result, it can be a requirement for related measurements from multiple sources
to be treated as a single flow following a same path over the Internet so
as to experience similar jitter and latency. The traditional tuple of source,
destination and ports might then not be the proper indication to isolate
a consistent flow. On the other hand, the flow integrity can be preserved
in a simple manner if the setting of the Flow Label in the IPv6
header of packets outgoing a LLN domain, is centralized to the Border
Router, such as the root of a RPL DODAG structure, or an ISA100.11a
Backbone Router, as opposed to distributed across the actual sources.
</t>
<t>Considering that the goal for setting the Flow Label as prescribed in
<xref target="RFC6437">the IPv6 Flow Label Specification</xref> is to
improve load balancing in the core of the Internet, it is unlikely that
LLN devices will consume energy to generate and then transmit a Flow Label
to serve outside interests and the Flow Label is generally left to zero
so as to be elided in the 6LoWPAN <xref target="RFC6282"/> compression. So
in a general manner the interests of the core are better served if the RPL
roots systematically rewrite the flow label rather than if they never do.
</t> <t>
For packets coming into the RPL domain from the Internet, the value for
setting the Flow Label as prescribed in <xref target="RFC6437"/>
is consumed once the packet has traversed the core and reaches the LLN.
Then again, there is little value but a high cost for the LLN in spending
20 bits to transport a Flow Label, that was set by a peer or a router in
the Internet, over the constrained network to a destination node that has
no use of it.
</t> <t>On a PHY layer with super-short frames such as IEEE802.15.4,
compliance with those rules will simply not happen, and the rules will
become an bone of contention for IPv6 adoption at a time where great
progress is happening towards that goal, as illustrated by the activity
at 6lo on multiple LLN Link-layers.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='compate' title="On Compatibility With Existing Standards">
<t>
All the packets from all the nodes in a same DODAG that are leaving a RPL
domain towards the Internet will transit via a same RPL root. The RPL root
segregates the Internet and the RPL domain, which enables the capability
to reuse the Flow Label within the RPL domain. The ISA100.11a Backbone
Router plays a similar role and interfaces an ISA100.11a WSN D-subnet with
a larger IPv6 network.
</t>
<t>This specification enables the operation of resetting or reusing the
IPv6 Flow Label at the border of a LLN domain. This is a deviation from
<xref target="RFC6437"> the IPv6 Flow Label Specification </xref>, in that
the LLN border router is neither the source nor the first hop router that
sets the final Flow Label for use outside the LLN domain.
</t>
<t>
But if we consider the whole RPL domain as a large virtual host from the
standpoint of the rest of the Internet, the interests that lead to
<xref target="RFC6437"/>, and in
particular load balancing in the core of the Internet, are probably better
served if the root guarantees that the Flow Label is set in a compliant
fashion than if we rely on each individual sensor that may
not use it at all, or use it slightly differently such as done in
ISA100.11a.
</t>
<t>Additionally, LLN flows can be compound flows aggregating information
from multiple sources. The Border Router is an ideal place to rewrite the
Flow Label to a same value for a same flow across multiple
sources, ensuring compliance with the rules defined by
<xref target="RFC6437"/> for use outside
of the RPL domain and in particular in the core of the Internet. </t>
<!--t> It can be noted that <xref target="RFC6282"/> provides an efficient header compression for packets
that do have the Flow Label set in the IPv6 header. It results that the overhead for transporting the RPL information
can be down from 64 to 20 bits, alleviating at the same time the need for IP-in-IP encapsulation.
This optimization cannot be ignored, and can make the difference for the adoption of RPL and 6TiSCH
by external standard bodies.</t-->
<t>
This document specifies how the Flow Label can be reused within a LLN
domain such as a RPL domain and an ISA100.11a D-subnet, in which a Border
Router delineates the limit of the domain and may rewrite the Flow Label
on all packets. In a RPL domain, it will become acceptable to use the Flow
Label as replacement to the RPL option, though whether that operation gets
standardized is left to be discussed. That use of the Flow Label within
a RPL domain would be an instance of the stateful scenarios as discussed
in <xref target="RFC6437"/> where the flow state in the node is indexed by
the RPLInstanceID that identifies the routing topology.
ISA100.11a would be another instance where the 16bit Contract ID in the
Flow Label identifies a state in a node that is specific to a particular
flow.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor='appli' title="Updated Rules">
<t>This specification applies to a constrained LLN domain that forms a stub
and is connected to the Internet by and only by its Border Routers.
In the case of a RPL domain, the RPL root is such a bottleneck for all the
traffic between the Internet and the
Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) that it serves.
This specification also covers other LLN domains with the same properties
of having strict constraints in energy and/or frame size, such as an
<xref target="ISA100.11a">ISA100.11a</xref> Industrial Wireless Sensor
Network, but does not generalize to any arbitrary domain. This updates
<xref target="RFC6437"> the IPv6 Flow Label Specification </xref>, which
does not allow any specific rule in any particular domain, and updates it
only in the context of constrained LLN domains.
</t>
<t>
In that context, a LLN domain Border Router MAY rewrite the
Flow Label of all packets entering or leaving the RPL domain in both
directions, from and towards the Internet, regardless of its original
setting. For the limited context of a constrained LLN domain, this updates
<xref target="RFC6437"> the IPv6 Flow Label Specification </xref> which
stipulates that once it is set, the Flow Label is left unchanged; but the
RFC also indicates a violation to the rule can be accepted for compelling
reasons related to security. This specification adds that energy-saving
is another compelling reason for a violation to the aforementioned rule,
though applicable only inside a constrained LLN.
</t>
<t>
In particular, the Border Router of a LLN domain MAY set the Flow Label of
IPv6 packets that exit the LLN domain. It SHOULD do it if the LLN domain
operations do not conform <xref target="RFC6437"/>, and if it does modify
the Flow Label, then it MUST do it in a manner that conforms
<xref target="RFC6437"/> from the perspective of a Node outside the LLN.
</t>
<t>It results that a Node in a constrained LLN domain MUST NOT assume
that the setting of the Flow Label will be preserved end-to-end, and that
an intermediate router inside a constrained LLN MAY alter a non-zero Flow
Label between the source in the LLN and the LLN Border Router. This does
not modify the expectations on end Nodes but extends the updated rules
from <xref target="RFC6437"/> to arbitrary routers in the LLN.
</t>
<t>
For instance, a RPL root MAY reset the Flow Label of IPv6 packets
entering the RPL domain to zero for an optimal Header Compression by
6LoWPAN <xref target="RFC6282"/>. A RPL root MAY also reuse the Flow
Label towards the LLN for other purposes, such as to carry the
<xref target="RFC6553"> RPL Information</xref>. An ISA100.11s
Backbone Router MAY reuse the Flow Label to carry local flow information,
such as the Contract ID specified in
<xref target="ISA100.11a">ISA100.11a</xref>.
</t>
</section>
<!-- section title="Flow Label Format Within the RPL Domain">
<t>
<xref target="RFC6550"/> section 11.2 specifies the fields that are
to be placed into the packets for the purpose of Instance Identification,
as well as Loop Avoidance and Detection. Those fields include an 'O', and 'R'
and an 'F' bits, the 8-bit RPLInstanceID, and the 16-bit SenderRank.
SenderRank is the result of the DAGRank operation on the rank of the sender,
where the DAGRank operation is defined in section 3.5.1 as:
<list><t>DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease)</t></list>
</t>
<t>If MinHopRankIncrease is set to a multiple of 256, it appears that
the most significant 8 bits of the SenderRank will be all zeroes and
could be omitted. In that case, the Flow Label MAY be used as a
replacement to the <xref target="RFC6553"/> RPL option. To achieve this, the
SenderRank is expressed with 8 least significant bits, and the information
carried within the Flow Label in a packet is constructed follows: </t>
<figure anchor="flowlabel" title="The RPL Flow Label">
<artwork>
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |O|R|F| SenderRank | RPLInstanceID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>The first (leftmost) bit of the Flow Label is reserved and should be set to zero.
</t>
</section -->
<!--section title="LLN Border Router Operation">
<t> <xref target="RFC6437"/> section 3 intentionally does not consider Flow
Label values in which any of the bits have semantic significance. However,
the present specification allows to assign semantics to various bits in the
flow label, destroying within the LLN domain the property of belonging to a
statistically uniform distribution that is desirabl in the rest of the
Internet.<!- - This property MUST be restored by the root for packets
that exit the RPL domain towards the Internet. - ->
</t>
<t> It can be noted that the rationale for the statistically uniform distribution does not
necessarily bring a lot of value within the LLN domain. In a specific use case where it would,
that value must be compared with that of the battery savings in order to decide which technique
the deployment will use to transport the RPL information.
</t>
<section title="Incoming Packets">
<t>
When routing a packet towards the RPL domain, the root applies a policy to determine whether
the Flow Label is to be used to carry the RPL information. If so, the root MUST reset the Flow Label and
then it MUST set all the fields in the Flow Label as prescribed by <xref target="RFC6553"/> using the
format specified in <xref target="flowlabel"/>. In particular, the root selects the Instance that will
be used to forward the packet within the RPL domain.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Outgoing Packets">
<t>
When routing a packet outside the RPL domain, the root applies a policy to determine whether
the Flow Label was used to carry the RPL information. If so, the root MUST reset the Flow Label.
The root SHOULD recompute a Flow Label following the rules prescribed by <xref target="RFC6553"/>.
In particular, the root MAY ignore the source address but it SHOULD use the RPLInstanceID for the computation.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="RPL node Operation">
<t>Depending on the policy in place, the source of a packet will decide whether to use this specification
to transport the RPL information in the IPv6 packets. If it does, the source in the LLN SHOULD set the
Flow Label to zero and MUST NOT expect that the flow label will be conserved end-to-end".
</t>
</section -->
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>Because the flow label is not protected by IPSec, it is expected that
Layer-2 security is deployed in the LLN where is specification is applied.
This is the actual best practice in LLNs, which serves in particular to
avoid forwarding of untrusted packets over the constrained network.
</t> <t>
The specification insists that the LLN Node should not expect that the
Flow Label is conserved end-to-end and rather reduces the risk of
misinterpretation in case of a rewrite by a router in the middle.
</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>No IANA action is required for this specification.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The author wishes to thank Brian Carpenter for his in-depth review and constructive approach to the problem resolution.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2460"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3697"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6437"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6282"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6550"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6552"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6553"?>
<reference anchor="IEEE802154">
<front>
<title>IEEE std. 802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks</title>
<author>
<organization>IEEE standard for Information Technology</organization>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2011"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ISA100.11a" target="http://www.isa.org/Community/SP100WirelessSystemsforAutomation">
<front>
<title>Wireless Systems for Industrial Automation: Process Control and Related Applications - ISA100.11a-2011 - IEC 62734</title>
<author>
<organization>ISA/ANSI</organization>
</author>
<date year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4944"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5673"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7102"?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-tsch'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture'?>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 05:11:01 |