Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter - version 4

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 17 July 2016 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CF212D16D for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WBfxeA9jkrNJ for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5F3712D0C4 for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05912015D for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CB3638D1 for <>; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:55:29 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Comments for ROLL Charter - version 4
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:55:33 -0000

I have read the charter, and I do not find anything more to tweak.
I would prefer to cut some of the history out, or move it to the end, but I
recognize that this may have value to new comers.

Do we presently have people willing to contribute to a YANG model?

Ines  Robles <>; wrote:

    > Charter for Working Group

    > Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs ) [RFC7102] [RFC7228] 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 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 RPI (RFC6553), RH3 (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.

    > ROLL will coordinate closely with the working groups in other areas
    > that focus on constrained node networks, such as 6lo (Internet) and
    > CoRE (APP).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.

    > 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. (co-ordinated with 6lo WG).

    > - Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size and the amount of
    > required routing states

    > - Automatic selection of MPL forwarders to reduce message replication

    > - Data models for RPL and MPL management

    > - Alternative Multicast algorithm based on Bier forwarding.

    > - Methods to improve or correct the current RPL behaviour and the other
    > protocols defined by the working group.

Michael Richardson <>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-