Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 27 June 2016 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CE512D782 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0XBbArKbgut for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01AEF12D79E for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=38408; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467044225; x=1468253825; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=IeH5YVbjR+zvCdR4SWwEjvep748OwT4ki6Ni4ekxIBA=; b=PoMFdgFO6QJADnq/Q1lQc/r6NAIzYT+aMx0pLrncynbegClCa85+jNOt O9MOvXU7aHfrEHKidr+aTadZxpp57xqKNjzNFnuOk81UyTkPFsFv1FFdT J1YpOKSCrsGS/LxFJu0xxL0fEj2LgK8ObNM3O+NS/yO++2v9dr2OknDIC c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D2AQDbUHFX/5RdJa1bgnBOVn0GuBaCD?= =?us-ascii?q?4F7hhgCHIEUOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETAEBAQQjClwCAQgRBAEBIQEGAwICAjAUCQg?= =?us-ascii?q?CBBMIE4gVskaQFQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyGKIRNgSKCegoxH4JLg?= =?us-ascii?q?loFmQEBji+PK2+PDwEeNoIIHIFMbogzRX8BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,537,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="119515963"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2016 16:17:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5RGH4qg006284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:04 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:17:03 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:17:03 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
Thread-Index: AQHRy9nVupFNWUgruE+yIgm4tP2235/9MbkggACXUID//71HgA==
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:00 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:16:01 +0000
Message-ID: <2f98fd28425b49d8a77119c01a918526@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAP+sJUdRQHJhuszRLmMLoObVVELTGKAboPZpjHRV1M1t3T1BpA@mail.gmail.com> <962ecd511f1b4629bcf329790509bb0c@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <DB5PR01MB18151D687D8A53D059D8501980210@DB5PR01MB1815.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR01MB18151D687D8A53D059D8501980210@DB5PR01MB1815.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.20]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2f98fd28425b49d8a77119c01a918526XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/CeXcN1aJD31RSY8YaMwxTS62CAc>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:14 -0000

Hello Randy:

I’d like to enable unicast and BIER-TE as well : )

Cheers,

Pascal

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Turner, Randy
Sent: lundi 27 juin 2016 17:13
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

Hi Pascal,

Could we just say that “the group will work on enhancements/optimizations for multicast on an LLN”, rather than spell out explicit items ? We’ve done this type of aggregation already for “Methods to improve the current RPL behavior”.

Or, if others feel we need to say absolutely what we plan on doing, then maybe these could be bulleted, with the last bullet indicating “and other methods of enhancing or optimizing multicast on an LLN”

Randy

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:53 AM
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
Cc: peter van der Stok
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter

Hello Ines and Peter:

I’m happy with this proposed charter. On this particular item, though,
“
Additional protocol to  reduce paths for RPL in non-storing mode
“

I’ll note that methods that rely on BIER or on Bloom filters to make routing more efficient were already discussed and should be accommodated. Proposal:
“
Additional protocol elements to reduce source route headers in non-storing mode and/or memory consumption in storing mode such as route projection and BIER.
“


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Charter for Working Group

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 are characterized as follows, but not limited to:

-LLNs operate with a hard, very small bound on state.

-In most cases, LLN optimize for saving energy by using small packet headers and few reduce amount of control packets.

-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 and low bit rates, 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; since 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 (draft-levis-roll-overview-protocols-00) and have in their current form been found to not satisfy all of these specific routing requirements “Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy Networks” RFC 5548, “Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks” RFC 5673, “Home Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks” RFC 5826, Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks RFC 5867.

The Working Group is focused on routing issues for LLN and maintaining the protocols developed by the working group.

There is a wide scope of application areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting, access control, fire), connected homes, health care, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks (e.g. Smart Grid), asset tracking. The Working Group focuses on routing solutions for a subset of these: connected home, building and urban sensor networks for which routing requirements have been specified. These application-specific routing requirement documents were used for protocol design.
The Working Group focuses 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 document how data packets are routed and encapsulated when they cross the LLN, and when they enter and exit the LLN: the appropriate use of RH3 (RFC6553), RPI (RFC6554) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation including how routing loops are detected. In consultation with the 6lo WG, the Working Group will design a method to compress these routing headers into a single block. The WGLC on this work will be shared with 6lo. The Working group will align with the 6man WG when needed.
ROLL is responsible for maintenance of the protocols that is has developed, including RPL and MPL. AD approval is required for each new work item that is proposed.

Work Items are:

- Guidance in using RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation.

- Compression of  RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context

- Additional protocol to  reduce paths for RPL in non-storing mode

- Automatic selection of MPL forwarders to reduce message replication

- Data models for RPL and MPL management

- Alternative Multicast algorithm based on Bier forwarding.

- Solution  of  the  problems associated with the use of No- Path DAO messaging in RPL.

- Methods to improve the current RPL behaviour, e.g. DIS modifications in RPL.


Milestones                                        DATE

Recharter WG or close                   September 2017

Initial submission of draft about YANG RPL model to IESG   March 2017

Initial submission of draft about MPL selection to IESG    January 2017

Initial submission of draft about Bier Multicast to IESG      November 2016

Submit draft about YANG MPL model to IESG     October 2016

Initial Submission of the draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation     August 2016
Draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo to the IESG.

Initial submission of the draft about how to compress RFC6553, RFC6554, and IP headers in the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer context.  to the IESG.    May 2016
draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch

Initial Submission of the No-Path DAO Problem Statement to the IESG     November 2016



/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////