RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Routing for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RL2N) BOF

IETF-70 - Vancouver - December 2007 BOF Chairs: JP Vasseur/David Culler ADs: Dave Ward/Ross Callon

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Agenda• Administrativia (Chairs, 5 min)

– Notes takers– Agenda bashing

• Scoping the BOF (Chairs/ADs, 10 min)– Motivation and problem statement presentation

• RL2N Routing Requirements summary (several & chairs, 15 mn)• Protocol survey (Levis – 5 mn)• Consensus and Charter discussion (15 mn)

– Consensus – Work Items/Milestones– Interaction with other WG (6lowpan)

• Conclusion and next steps (10mn, chairs and ADs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Why are we here?• This is a Working Group forming BOF

– Desired outcome is to form a new working group

• This is not a technology tutorial or opportunity to discuss solutions

• Presentations will demonstrate:1. Existence of a problem that needs to be solved

2. Approach to understand and solve problem

3. Existence of large community of interest

4. Listing of proposed charter deliverables and timeline

• Please hold discussion to end of presentations

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Agenda• Administrativia (Chairs, 5 min)

– Notes takers– Agenda bashing

• Scoping the BOF (Chairs/ADs, 10 min)– Motivation and problem statement presentation

• RL2N Routing Requirements summary (several & chairs, 15 mn)• Protocol survey (Levis – 5 mn)• Consensus and Charter discussion (15 mn)

– Consensus– Work Items/Milestones– Interaction with other WG (6lowpan)

• Conclusion and next steps (10mn, chairs and ADs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

BoF scoping: Background• Wireless embedded networks are widely deployed today:

– Industrial monitoring, process control, Automated Metering, Condition Based Maintenance, Building HVAC, Lighting control, home automation, Cold Chain, energy usage, agriculture, urban infrastructure, …

– Well-understood usage models with body of practical experience

• Enabled by “CMOS radios” over past decade– Numerous link types: IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth, Low Power WiFi, WiBree– many gateways, proxies and middleware adapters Low Cost, Low Power, Low Bandwidth

• Several industrial forums created to fill the standards gap– Zigbee, ZWave, Wireless HART, ISA SP100.11a, SP100, …– plus many proprietary protocols, even over standard links

• Large industry desire to move to interoperable devices running over IP

• IETF has not actively been working on low power networks until recently– 6lowpan WG: RFC4944 (IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4)– Still no IP Routing Solution for such networks.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

BOF scoping: Domain

• Routing over Low Power and Lossy Networks: L2Ns– Networks comprising a large number of highly constrained devices

interconnected by wireless links of unpredictable quality.– Web page: www.employees.org/~jvasseur

• Technology and problem space discussed @ Chicago (IETF-69) Routing Area Meeting– Low Power Low Transmission Power, Modest Receive Sensitivity, Short

Range, Multi-Hop,

– Lossy BER, Small MTU, Embedded in changing, often harsh, environment.

– Typically connected to small foot-print hosts (microcontrollers)

– Slides can be found at: http://www.employees.org/~jvasseur/RL2N-Routing-Area-meeting-IETf-69.ppt

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

BOF scoping: Domain.2

• Productized, working implementations have been developed– Industrial routing solutions over lossy links at low power available today– Each defines its format, network, transport, gateway,…

• IETF 6LoWPAN Internet Area WG produced IPv6 header compression RFC over IEEE 802.15.4 making IP practical for this class of networks.

• IP Routing solution for L2Ns is needed – Consensus with 6lowpan and other WGs that an IP routing solution

should be developed in the RTG area.– LoWPANs are multi-hops and interconnected using various link types

e.g., IEEE 802.15.4, LP 802.11, WiBree, … but also some wired links.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

BoF Scoping: Problem Statement• Define routing requirements for a representative subset of

the application scenarios that utilize L2Ns in large scale environments

• Formulate a routing framework for these scenarios that provides – high reliability in the presence of time varying loss characteristics – connectivity while permitting low-power operation with very modest

memory and CPU pressure

• Paying particular attention to routing security and manageability (self configuration)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

BoF Scoping: Approach1. Produce Routing Requirements documents for select

representative use cases in collaboration with INT 6lowpan WG– Industrial application networks– Connected Home, Building– Urban infrastructure networks

2. Survey applicability of existing protocols to L2Ns. – Ability to carry new link and node attributes, scaling characteristics and

overhead– Existing IGPs, MANET, NEMO, DTN

3. Provide architectural framework for routing in L2Ns– Routing metrics used in path calculation that include static and dynamic

link/nodes attributes– Distributed vs. centralized path computation– Hierarchy

==>Recharter with suggestion of protocol direction and on to specification

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Agenda• Administrativia (Chairs, 5 min)

– Notes takers– Agenda bashing

• Scoping the BOF (Chairs/ADs, 10 min)– Motivation and problem statement presentation

• RL2N Routing Requirements summary (several & chairs, 15 mn)• Protocol survey (Levis – 5 mn)• Consensus and Charter discussion (15 mn)

– Consensus– Work Items/Milestones– Interaction with other WG (6lowpan)

• Conclusion and next steps (10mn, chairs and ADs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Home Automation Routing Requirement in Low Power and

Lossy Networks

draft-brandt-rl2n-home-routing-reqs-02

Anders Brandt (Zensys) - Anders Brandt abr@zen-sys.com

IETF 70, Vancouver, Dec. 2007

(very high level overview)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Devices in the home• Remote control

– Only wakes up when operated...

• Movement sensor & Smoke alarm– Routing should be avoided to save battery =>

Node attributes taken into account by constrained routing

• Lamp module & Switch module– Stable routing resources

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Home scenario routing issues ..• Short distances but Multi-hop routing needed because of signal distortion

• Reinforced concrete, refrigerator doors and other metal

objects • Support for multiple paths

nodes may fail or be powered off

• Ability to locate a working path within 250msif operational and used before

• Neighbor discovery on a frequent basisConsumers move nodes at will ...

• Routing self-configuration is a MUST.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Industrial Routing Requirements in Low Power

and Lossy Networks

draft-pister-rl2n-indus-routing-reqs-00

Kris Pister (Dust Networks) - Kris Pister kpister@dustnetworks.com

IETF 70, Vancouver, Dec. 2007

(very high level overview)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Industrial Automation Background• Very important functionality

– 60 million installed process control sensors– 4 million shipping per year– ~50% are “smart” today – wired networks

• HART– Most popular wired sensor network protocol– HART 1: 1,200 baud digital comm over 4-20mA loops– Wireless HART

• Ratified as a part of HART7 September 2007• 802.15.4 based• Announced vendors: ABB, Emerson, Siemens, …• Multi-hop Mesh networking

• SP100 wireless– Draft standard in 2008– Adopted 6LoWPAN, but defining own routing, transport

• Wireless HART and SP100 are a hybrid of circuit and packet switched– IEEE 802.15.4E WG created to standardize

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Examples of Data flows1. Low frequency data collection

– 1/s to 1/hour; typically < 1/min– Latency comparable to sample interval– Typically <50B– Some time series >10kB

2. Alarms– <50B

3. Log file upload– 1/day, 1/year– 10kB ..1MB

4. Human diagnostic query/response– Mean latency important

5. Feedback control– Max latency important– Latency from minutes to <1ms (infeasible w/ 15.4 radios)

• Often all of these will be operating in different parts of the network

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Industrial Scenario:Routing Requirements

• Link Attribute aware routing– The usual: Latency, BW, reliability, …

• New constraints: node lifetime traffic routing• Average power: energy storage (batteries, ultra-caps, …)

• Peak power: energy scavenging (solar, vibration, current loops, …)

• High scalability is a MUST• Security

– Extremely important - risk of lives and mega-$– Part of WG charter: “produce a security framework for

routing in L2Ns”

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Routing Requirements in Urban Low Power and Lossy

Networks

draft-dohler-rl2n-urban-routing-reqs-01Hassnaa Moustafa, Mischa Dohler, G. Madhusudan, G. Chegaray, T.

Watteyne, C. Jacquenet

France Telecom

(very high level overview)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Urban L2Ns Background• Trial roll-outs in Voiron and other French cities• Serious business projections in near future• Network elements:

1) sensors (sensing of environment)2) actuators (control of environment)3) repeaters (infrastructure, coverage extension, etc)4) access points (gateway, information sink and source)

• Peculiarities of Urban L2Ns:1) huge amount of field nodes2) highly energy constrained nodes3) batteries (ir)regularly recharged4) correlated data readings5) highly directed info flow

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Urban RL2Ns Requirements• Critical importance:

1) scalability (mainly w.r.t. path discovery, energy)2) parameter constrained routing (mainly w.r.t. energy)3) security (mainly w.r.t. data integrity and authenticity)4) alien and autonomous functioning/configuration

• Lesser importance:1) bandwidth2) latency

• Must support1) highly directed information flows2) heterogeneous field-devices (different MACs)3) multi/group/geo cast

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Applying Routing Protocols in L2Ns

draft-levis-rl2n-overview-protocols-02(very high level overview)

Phil Levis (Stanford) - pal@cs.stanford.edu

JP Vasseur (Cisco) - jpv@cisco.com

David Culler (arch Rock) - dculler@archrock.com

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Goal

• Large spectrum of existing routing protocols

• L2Ns introduce new and specific constraints

• Can we use existing protocols?

• If not, what can we learn? What can we borrow?

• RL2N charter work item

Survey the applicability of exiting protocols to L2Ns. The aim of this document will be to analyze the scaling and characteristics of existing protocols and identify whether or not they meet the routing requirements of the L2N applications identified above. Existing IGP, MANET, NEMO, and DTN routing protocols will be part of the evaluation.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

• Small footprint

• Flooding control and density awareness

• Multi-path routing

• Resource awareness (link/nodes)

• Small MTU

• Multi-topology routing

Requirements(derived from applications IDs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

• Small footprint

• Flooding control and density awareness

• Multi-path routing

• Resource awareness (link/nodes)

• Small MTU

• Multi-topology routing

Requirements(derived from application IDs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

N: Number of nodesC: Communicating nodesD: Destinationsd: densityh: hopcountc: link churn

Protocol Medium Class Traffic State

OSPF wired link-state

O(N2dc) O(Nd)

OLSR wireless

link-state

O(N2) O(Nd)

TBRPF wireless

link-state

O(N2) O(Nd2)

RIP wired vector O(ND) O(D)

AODV wireless

vector O(NCc) O(Cd)

DSDV wireless

vector O(ND) O(D)

DYMO wireless

vector O(NCch) O(Ch + d)

DYMO-low wireless

vector O(NCc) O(C + d)

DSR wireless

vector O(NDh) O(Dh)

Illustrative preliminary study

• Draft examines all requirements• Cover two here: control traffic and route state

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Agenda• Administrativia (Chairs, 5 min)

– Notes takers– Agenda bashing

• Scoping the BOF (Chairs/ADs, 10 min)– Motivation and problem statement presentation

• RL2N Routing Requirements summary (several & chairs, 15 mn)• Protocol survey (Levis – 5 mn)• Consensus and Charter discussion (15 mn)

– Consensus– Work Items/Milestones– Interaction with other WG (6lowpan)

• Conclusion and next steps (10mn, chairs and ADs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Consensus reached so far

• Informal work started about a year ago– Creation of a non-WG mailing list after IETF 68 (

rsn@ietf.org - 400 subscribers)

• Generic requirements ID draft-culler-rl2n-routing-reqs to focus discussion

• Application driven routing requirements approach:– Industrial: draft-pister-rl2n-indus-routing-reqs– Connected Home: draft-brandt-rl2n-home-routing-reqs– Urban: draft-dohler-rl2n-urban-routing-reqs

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

BOF scoping - Summary of discussions• Pre-WG meeting was held in Boston on November 15• Participants: K. Pister (Dust), R. King (Crossbow), A. Brandt (Zensys), M.

A. Mc Lachlan (BT), P. Levis (Stanford), J. Oliveira (Drexel), J. Butler (Cimetrics), D. Ward (IESG), M. Dohler (FT) M. Murphy-hoye (Intel), Ed Butler (Intel), Pete St Pierre (Sun), David Culler (Arch Roc), G. Mulligan (6lowpan co-chair), Pierre Colle (Schneider Electric), Todd Snide (Schneider Electric), Nabil Bitar (Verizon), JP Vasseur (Cisco).

• Agenda

• Minutes posted to the RSN Mailing list

Introduction and Background: JP/David - 15mn

Review of the current IDs (15mn per ID) - draft-brandt-rl2n-home-routing-reqs-01- Anders - draft-pister-rl2n-industrial-routing-reqs-01- Kris - draft-levis-rl2n-overview-protocols-01 - Phil

Charter * Discussion of the proposed charter * Interaction with other WGs: 6lowpan and SDOs * Open issues: DTN, MANET

BOF organization

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Large Community of Interest is apparent

• Collaboration of Industry, End User, Vendors, Service Providers, Academia (Schneider Electric, France Telecom, Dust, Arch Rock, Zensys, Cisco, Intel, Stanford, Berkeley, Drexel, …).

• Active support on the list from many participants: Telecom Italia, Sensinode, Crossbow, Cimetrics, Silver Spring, …

• In addition other collaborating WGs have helped scope charter to solve the problem and work through any apparent overlaps and remove any conflict

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Strong support from community

Many positive feed-backs supporting the formation of a new WG:

“ .. We see a strong interest in the creation of this working group about routing over lossy & low power network … Sharing common approaches would also ease implementation of interoperable solutions. Schneider Electric

“ … I would like to express my support for the R2LN effort. … At present Zigbee seems to be the most popular “open” technology for wireless field-level networks, but I believe that IP-based wireless solutions that meet the requirements of HVAC control and lighting control would be welcomed by the building controls industry. Jim Butler - Cimetrics - CTO

“ … Telecom Italia welcomes a solution of the issues listed in the scope of this initiative. …” Telecom Italia

“ … After some FT/Orange internal discussions and having had you on the phone today, we have decided to actively participate in RL2N.” France Telecom

“ … Crossbow Technology wants to express its support for this working group as we believe that IP based communication will be an important standard for the markets we serve. Ralph Kling - Crossbow

“… There is a huge need for standardized IP WSN routing in well-scoped domains *now*, *today*, to solve *real problems* … But the biggest concern they still have is a lack of a standard routing technique. So rl2n is solving an acute problem for deploying IP-based wireless sensor networks. I think the charter text is good, and scoping to these 3 areas really keeps it focused. Zach Zelby Sensinode

+20 positive feed-backs on the list, no negative comment.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

RL2N WG Charter: Overview Work Items

1. Produce use cases documents for Industrial, Connected Home, Building and urban application networks.• Describe the use case and the associated routing protocol

requirements. • The documents will progress in collaboration with the 6lowpan

Working Group (INT area).

2. Survey the applicability of existing protocols to L2Ns: analyze the scaling and characteristics of existing protocols and identify whether or not they meet the routing requirements of the L2Ns applications. • Existing IGPs, MANET, NEMO, DTN routing protocols will be part

of evaluation.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

RL2N WG Charter: Overview Work Items (2)

3. Specification of routing metrics used in path calculation. • This includes static and dynamic link/nodes attributes required for

routing in L2Ns.

4. Provide an architectural framework for routing and path selection at Layer 3 (Routing for L2N Architecture)

• Decide whether the L2Ns routing protocol require a distributed, centralized path computation models or both.

• Decide whether the L2N routing protocol requires a hierarchical routing approach.

5. Produce a security framework for routing in L2Ns.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Goals and Milestones• April 2008 Submit Use case/Routing requirements for Industrial, Connected

Home, Building and Urban networks applications to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC.

• August 2008: Submit Routing Metrics and Attrributes for L2Ns document to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC.

• November 2008: Submit Protocol Survey to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC.

• January 2009 Submit Security Framework for L2Ns to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC

• February 2009: Submit the Routing for L2Ns Architecture document (summary of requirements, metrics and attributes, path selection model) to the IESG as an Informational RFC.

• March 2009: Recharter.

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Interaction with other WGs

• 6lowpan: working on L2Ns over 802.15.4

• MANET: we may be end up using some (adapted) MANET protocols if the WG think that they satisfy the requirements

• Other industry forums and SDOs. – Zigbee,– ITU,– Bluetooth,– Wosa,– …

• What is out of scope?– Use cases not listed in the charter: agricultural, healthcare, wild life, … (aka

DTN)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Agenda• Administrativia (Chairs, 5 min)

– Notes takers– Agenda bashing

• Scoping the BOF (Chairs/ADs, 10 min)– Motivation and problem statement presentation

• RL2N Routing Requirements summary (several & chairs, 15 mn)• Protocol survey (Levis – 5 mn)• Consensus and Charter discussion (15 mn)

– Consensus– Work Items/Milestones– Interaction with other WG (6lowpan)

• Conclusion and next steps (10mn, chairs and ADs)

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Discuss now …

• Is there consensus to form a Working Group?

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Back-up Slides

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

RL2N Routing Requirements summary

– 10-point General Requirements served as framework for building consensus, prioritization, and more detailed used-case requirements analysis1. Spatially-Driven Multihop

2. Light Footprint

3. Small MTU

4. Deep power management

5. Heterogeneous Capabilities (node and link)

6. Highly Variable Connectivity

7. Structured Workload and Traffic Pattern

8. Operation with Partial Information

9. Quality of Service Capable Routing

10.Data Aware Routing

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Good support on the list

We see a strong interest in the creation of this working group about routing over lossy & low power networks.Schneider Electric is already proposing wireless solutions for both Home, Building and Industrial markets.We are very interested to provide in this group our application requirements.Providing a standard IP based wireless routing solution would be useful for our customers already using an IP infrastructure as it simplifies gateway implementation. We would also like to create links between ZigBee and this working group. We think that a lot of work done by ZigBee might be re-used.Sharing common approaches would also ease implementation of interoperable solutions.

Schneider Electric

I would like to express my support for the R2LN effort. In the commercial building controls industry, wireless communication is a very hot topic. Major manufacturers are actively marketing control products and systems that support wireless communication … At present Zigbee seems to be the most popular “open” technology for wireless field-level networks, but I believe that IP-based wireless solutions that meet the requirements of HVAC control and lighting control would be welcomed by the building controls industry. Jim Butler - Cimetrics - CTO

This e-mail just to state that Telecom Italia welcomes a solution of theissues listed in the scope of this initiative. In particular TelecomItalia would like to see a smooth and fruitful integration of the IPlayer with existing layer 2 protocols to enrich the IP devices'ecosystem once a suitable routing protocol has been developed.Telecom Italia welcomes a solution which is well harmonized withexisting standards for Wireless Sensor Networks, in particular ZigBee.The solution should also envisage for a network comprising sleepingrouters, i.e. nodes having routing facility and comprising a radiotransceiver that is intermittently operating (typically batterypowered). Telecom Italia

RL2N BOF - IETF-70

Good support on the list

I would also like to reiterate my support for the R2LN/ROLL effort.

Please register my support for forming a working group, and my support for the proposed charter.

Geoff Mulligan - 6lowpan co-chair

Charles Perkins - Nokia

In my opinion the proposed RL2N charter is already pretty good, here is some support from our experience.

… There is a huge need for standardized IP WSN routing in well-scoped domains *now*, *today*, to solve *real problems*. For example here in Finland we are already rolling out fairly large 6lowpan (over 1000 node) networks in the industrial and building automation domains. Our direct 6lowpan node volume, will be well over 25k nodes in 2008. ISA100 helps next year, but for many applications a simpler 6lowpan + rl2n routing solution would be more suitable without full ISA100. Of course I assume ISA100 would apply the routing solution from rl2n eventually?

Almost all customers love the IP + 802.15.4 concept. But the biggest concern they still have is a lack of a standard routing technique. So rl2n is solving an acute problem for deploying IP-based wireless sensor networks.

I think the charter text is good, and scoping to these 3 areas really keeps it focused.

J. De Oliveira

Zach Shelby - CTO - Sensinode

Dear JP, dear all,

Thanks for your efforts in getting all this together. After some FT/Orange internal discussions and having had you on the phone today, we have decided to actively participate in RL2N. Mischa Dohler France Teleocm

I think that the ROLL WG is critically necessary to look at the issues surrounding routing over precisely the type of networks that 6lowpan anticipates using/building.

I'll be at the BOF on Thursday and I support us moving forward with this working group.

thanks again for driving the R2LN effort. Crossbow Technology wants to express its support for this working group as we believe that IP based communication will be an important standard for the markets we serve.

Geoff Mulligan - 6lowpan co-chair

Ralph Kling - Chief Architect Crossbow