Re: [recipe] Sleeping Nodes
Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu> Fri, 15 July 2011 08:31 UTC
Return-Path: <Quittek@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: recipe@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: recipe@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B378721F879F for <recipe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7GqbEe9aFzZ7 for <recipe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45EB21F85AE for <recipe@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BF72800032F; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:31:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YPHeF2-LHxpL; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:31:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (Methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EFB2800032C; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from DAPHNIS.office.hd ([169.254.2.188]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:31:41 +0200
From: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "recipe@ietf.org" <recipe@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [recipe] Sleeping Nodes
Thread-Index: AQHMQrnBIbi3RjzIFkirxjS0C48+p5TtBPkA
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:31:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CA45ADE7.13060%quittek@neclab.eu>
In-Reply-To: <1F32F796-E219-4673-85CE-6CE11A72820F@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505
x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.219]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <0FC52F4950793243A1E672D869B531CE@office.hd>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [recipe] Sleeping Nodes
X-BeenThere: recipe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RECIPE \(Reducing Energy Consumption with Internet Protocols Exploration\)" <recipe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/recipe>, <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/recipe>
List-Post: <mailto:recipe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe>, <mailto:recipe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:31:57 -0000
Dear Hannes, Thanks for reviving this list and pointing to Magaret's slides. There is another extensive discussion of sleeping nodes in the keynote http://www.green-communications.net/globecom09/docs/GreenComm-GLOBECOM09-1- 1-Gupta.pdf that energy-saving pioneer Rajesh Gupta gave 2009 at the 2nd workshop of the IEEE Green Communications Workshop series at ICC and GlobeCom (http://www.green-communications.net/). Cheers, Juergen On 15.07.11 08:37, "Hannes Tschofenig" <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote: >Hi all, > >in the recently published report from the Smart Object Workshop we have >section about "sleeping nodes": >http://tools.ietf.org/html//draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-01#section-3.2 > >Given the scope of this group you may find the writeup interesting. > >The writeup was based on the discussions at the workshop following >Margaret's presentation, which can found here >http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/04/Wasserman.ppt. >You may also find her paper "IT¹S NOT EASY BEING 'GREEN'" interesting: >http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/Wasserman.pdf > >While Margaret talked a lot about ND I am wondering whether someone of >you had looked into energy efficiency of other protocols already as well. > >Ciao >Hannes > >-------- > >3.2. Sleep Modes > > One limitation of smart objects is the available energy. To extend > battery life, for example of a watch battery or single AAA battery > for months, these small, low power devices have to sleep from 99% to > 99.5% of their time. For example, a light sensor may wake up to > check whether it is night-time to turn on light bulbs. Most parts of > the system are off-line most of the time and particularly > communication components are put into a sleeping state (e.g., WLAN > radio interface) and only very few components of an embedded system > board, such as sensors, are triggered periodically. When interesting > events happen then these components wake-up other parts of the > system, for example a radio interface to connect to the Internet. > Every bit is precious, so is every round trip, and every millisecond > of radio activity. > > Many IETF protocols implicitly assume that nodes in a network are > always-on and respond to messages, i.e., to maintain a persistent > presence on the network in order to respond to periodic messages that > are required in order to maintain persistent sessions, connections, > security associations, or state. These protocols work well on > networks with sufficient network bandwidth, where there is a low cost > to receiving/sending messages, and nodes are persistently available > on the network. > > In the early days a machine had gotten a specific IP address > allocated and it could use it when it wanted to send an IP packet. > You might need to execute an ARP exchange first before sending the > packet but you could keep the mapping in the cache for 15 minutes. > > Nowadays we want to make sure that we are on the right network before > we send an IP packet, we run neighbor discovery, we cannot keep > neighbor discovery for 15 minutes and so when a node wakes up again > it essentially has to re-do it to refresh the cache, we want to run > Detecting Network Attachment (DNA) procedures to check that hosts are > on the same network either by re-getting an address using the Dynamic > Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) or by noticing that the node is > using the same default gateway because of a received Router > Advertisement (RA). Essentially, a number of steps have to be taken > before sending a packet. > > However, these protocols do not work well, if at all, when the cost > of sending/receiving those messages is high (in terms of bandwidth or > battery life) or in cases where nodes sleep periodically and are not > persistently available to receive those messages. A number of issue > arise from these almost-always-off nodes. > > Also a lot of our protocols are getting more chatty. Keeping the > receiver up for an additional roundtrip costs extra energy. Protocol > messages can also be lengthy, e.g., many protocols carry XML-based > payloads. > > There are a couple of ways to think about how to make the situation > less worse: > > 1. The Always-On Assumption > > When designing a protocol that assumes that the nodes will always > be there at least consider an alternative paradigm. For example, > with duplicate address detection an alternative would be not to > use it. There might be also the option to consider an > architecture with a proxy node that these nodes can poll when > they boot up to find out whether anyone tried to contact them or > whether anything they care about has happened, or the proxy > answers on behalf of another node. > > > 2. High Cost to Rejoin the Network > > The goal of these things is to determine whether a wireless node > is not moved to another network while it was asleep and that > might be a viable thing to do. Expecting a wirelss node to go > through all these steps every time it wakes up before it is > allowed to send an Ip packet could be considered rather > excessive. > > Can we find ways to reduce the number of protocol interactions > that have to be executed for network attachment, including > determining whether a node has moved or the environment has > changed otherwise? > > > 3. Verbose Protocols > > Some protocols involve multiple roundtrips and/or lengthy > messages. As a result, low-powered nodes have to use more power > in sending messages and have to stay powered on for a longer > period of time as they wait for the protocol exchanges to > complete. The best way to address these problems is to ensure > that the simplest possible protocol exchanges are used when the > protocols in question are designed. However, in some cases > alternative encoding formats and compression may also help. > > One can argue that certain features are not useful in an environment > where most nodes are sleeping. The main focus of past investigations > has been on IPv6 and ND but other protocols do also deserve a deeper > investigation, such as DNS, and DHCP. > > During the protocol design phase certain protocols were assumed to be > used in a human-to-device context and therefore it was argued that > the verbose encoding is helpful. Examples are the Hypertext Transfer > Protocol (HTTP), the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), and > Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Nowadays these > protocols are also being considered and used in device-to-device > communication and the verbose nature is not helpful. > > While the principles seem to be most useful for low-power, battery > powered devices they would also be useful for other devices as well. > Energy efficiency is useful for normal devices as well, such as > laptops and smart phones. > > For example, consider energy consumption in a home environment. The > question is whether it will save more energy than it uses and > therefore one has to consider the overall energy consumption of the > entire solution. This is not always an easy question to answer. > IEEE 802.11 nodes, for example, use a lot of power if they cannot be > made to sleep most of the time. A light bulb may use less power but > there is also the device that controls the bulb that may consume a > lot of energy all the time. In total, more energy may be consumed > when considering these two devices together. > >_______________________________________________ >recipe mailing list >recipe@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe
- [recipe] Sleeping Nodes Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [recipe] Sleeping Nodes Juergen Quittek
- Re: [recipe] Sleeping Nodes Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [recipe] Sleeping Nodes JinHyeock Choi