Re: [Roll] proposed amendments to ROLL charter

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

Thank you very much for your comments, we are going to include them in our
meeting.

To all, There are additional topics that you would like to include in the
charter? Please justify.

Thank you very much,

Michael and Ines

2015-03-31 13:49 GMT+03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>:

> Hello Michael (and all):
>
> I fully support the additions. Since you are at it, I would like to
> explore a deeper realignment.
>
> ROLL is now in charge of the maintenance of RPL, isn't it?
> - I think that this should be a work item in the charter.
> - this should replace elements that were or are being delivered such as
> metrics, security, and RPL itself
>
> And if that's so, wouldn't it make sense to study how RPL works outside
> LLNs and in mixed environments?
> - I'd like to see work on RPL over foo where foo is Ethernet or Wi-Fi.
> Applicability of RPL in various environments outside LLN would be of
> interest, e.g. to build a Wi-Fi mesh or an unmanaged network. It seems that
> a DT will form at HOMENET to select a routing protocol, and an
> applicability statement of RPL for that case would be a good read if we can
> produce it in time.
> - From our experience of actually doing RPL over Ethernet, it is mostly a
> matter of *not* using the packet artifacts, probably not using the stretch
> in local repair, and reacting immediately to changes in link state. This is
> a very small spec indeed, mostly guidance on what to use and what not to
> use from RFC 6550, how to tune some parameters, which OF to use and how.
> - The work should also detail the mode where there is a backbone and a
> virtual root. I think that the current charter does not cover work outside
> LLN but considering that we are the group that knows RPL best, that work
> should happen here.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Pascal
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roll [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
> Richardson
> > Sent: lundi 23 mars 2015 19:41
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [Roll] proposed amendments to ROLL charter
> >
> >
> > The following changes are proposed for the ROLL charter to include the
> work to
> > profile 6553/6554/IPIP, and to compress it.
> >
> > To the pre-amble:
> >
> > After:
> >  - In most cases, LLNs will be employed over link layers with restricted
> >    frame-sizes, thus a routing protocol for LLNs should be specifically
> >    adapted for such link layers.
> >
> > Add:
> > +- LLN routing protocols have to be very careful when trading off
> > +efficiency
> > +  for generality; many LLN nodes do not have resources to waste.
> >
> > After:
> >  The solution must include unicast and multicast considerations.
> >
> > Add:
> > +The Working Group will document how non-control packets are routed when
> > +they cross the LLN, and when they enter and exit the LLN: the
> > +appropriate use of
> > +RH3 (RFC6553), RPI (RFC6554) and IPIP encapsulation including how
> > +routing loops are detected. In consultation with the 6lo WG, the
> > +Working Group will design a method to these routing headers into a
> > +single block.  The result will have a shared WGLC with 6lo.
> >
> > To  Work Items, add:
> > +     - A document detailing when to use RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPIP
> > +       encapsulation.
> > +
> > +     - A document detailing how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554 and IP
> headers
> > +       in the 6lowPAN HC context.
> >
> >
> > The resulting charter (after reformatting of some of the ugly text
> wrapping on
> > the web site) is:
> >
> > ----
> > Low power and Lossy networks (LLNs) are made up of many embedded devices
> > with limited power, memory, and processing resources. They are
> interconnected
> > by a variety of links, such as IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth, Low Power WiFi,
> wired or
> > other low power PLC (Powerline Communication) links. LLNs are
> transitioning to
> > an end-to-end IP-based solution to avoid the problem of non-interoperable
> > networks interconnected by protocol translation gateways and proxies.
> >
> > Generally speaking, LLNs have at least five distinguishing
> > characteristics:
> > - LLNs operate with a hard, very small bound on state.
> > - In most cases, LLN optimize for saving energy.
> > - Typical traffic patterns are not simply unicast flows (e.g. in some
> cases most if
> > not all traffic can be point to multipoint).
> > - In most cases, LLNs will be employed over link layers with restricted
> >   frame-sizes, thus a routing protocol for LLNs should be specifically
> >   adapted for such link layers.
> > - LLN routing protocols have to be very careful when trading off
> efficiency
> >   for generality; many LLN nodes do not have resources to waste.
> >
> > These specific properties cause LLNs to have specific routing
> requirements.
> >
> > Existing routing protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR have been
> > evaluated by the working group and have in their current form been found
> to
> > not satisfy all of these specific routing requirements.
> >
> > The Working Group is focused on routing issues for LLN.
> >
> > There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial
> > monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting, access control, fire),
> > connected homes, healthcare, environmental monitoring, urban sensor
> > networks (e.g. Smart Grid), asset tracking. The Working Group focuses on
> > routing solutions for a subset of these: industrial, connected home,
> building and
> > urban sensor networks for which routing requirements have been specified.
> > These application-specific routing requirement documents will be used for
> > protocol design.
> >
> > The Working Group focuses only on IPv6 routing architectural framework
> for
> > these application scenarios. The Framework will take into consideration
> various
> > aspects including high reliability in the presence of time varying loss
> > characteristics and connectivity while permitting low-power operation
> with very
> > modest memory and CPU pressure in networks potentially comprising a very
> > large number (several thousands) of nodes.
> >
> > The Working Group will pay particular attention to routing security and
> > manageability (e.g., self routing configuration) issues. It will also
> need to
> > consider the transport characteristic the routing protocol messages will
> > experience. Mechanisms that protect an LLN from congestion collapse or
> that
> > establish some degree of fairness between concurrent communication
> sessions
> > are out of scope of the Working Group. It is expected that upper-layer
> > applications utilizing LLNs define appropriate mechanisms.
> >
> > The solution must include unicast and multicast considerations.
> >
> > The Working Group will document how non-control packets are routed when
> > they cross the LLN, and when they enter and exit the LLN: the
> appropriate use of
> > RH3 (RFC6553), RPI (RFC6554) and IPIP encapsulation including how routing
> > loops are detected. In consultation with the 6lo WG, the Working Group
> will
> > design a method to these routing headers into a single block.  The
> result will
> > have a shared WGLC with 6lo.
> >
> > Work Items:
> >
> >      - Specification of routing metrics used in path calculation. This
> >        includes static and dynamic link/node attributes required for
> routing in
> >        LLNs.
> >
> >      - Provide an architectural framework for routing and path selection
> at
> >        Layer 3 (Routing for LLN Architecture) that addresses such issues
> as
> >        whether LLN routing require a distributed and/or centralized path
> >        computation models, whether additional hierarchy is necessary and
> how it
> >        is applied.
> >
> >        Manageability will be considered with each approach, along with
> various
> >        trade-offs for maintaining low power operation, including the
> presence of
> >        non-trivial loss and networks with a very large number of nodes.
> >
> >      - Produce a routing security framework for routing in LLNs.
> >
> >      - Protocol work: The Working Group will consider specific routing
> >        requirements from the four application documents collectively, and
> >        specify either a new protocol or extend an existing routing
> protocol
> >        in cooperation with the relevant Working Group.
> >        If requirements from the four target application areas cannot be
> met
> >        with a single protocol, the WG may choose to specify or extend
> more than
> >        one protocol (this will require a recharter of the WG).
> >
> >      - Documentation of applicability statement of ROLL routing
> protocols.
> >
> >      - A document detailing when to use RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPIP
> >        encapsulation.
> >
> >      - A document detailing how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554 and IP
> headers
> >        in the 6lowPAN HC context.
> >
> >
> >
> > $Id: charter.txt,v 1.3 2015/03/23 18:33:38 mcr Exp $
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> > IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>