|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 9030
Last modified on Sunday, May 30th, 2021
 Permanent link to RFC 9030
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 9030
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 9030
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Thubert, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9030 Cisco Systems
Category: Informational May 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721
An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of
IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)
 Abstract
This document describes a network architecture that provides low-
latency, low-jitter, and high-reliability packet delivery. It
combines a high-speed powered backbone and subnetworks using IEEE
802.15.4 time-slotted channel hopping (TSCH) to meet the requirements
of low-power wireless deterministic applications.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9030.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Terminology
2.1. New Terms
2.2. Abbreviations
2.3. Related Documents
3. High-Level Architecture
3.1. A Non-broadcast Multi-access Radio Mesh Network
3.2. A Multi-Link Subnet Model
3.3. TSCH: a Deterministic MAC Layer
3.4. Scheduling TSCH
3.5. Distributed vs. Centralized Routing
3.6. Forwarding over TSCH
3.7. 6TiSCH Stack
3.8. Communication Paradigms and Interaction Models
4. Architecture Components
4.1. 6LoWPAN (and RPL)
4.1.1. RPL-Unaware Leaves and 6LoWPAN ND
4.1.2. 6LBR and RPL Root
4.2. Network Access and Addressing
4.2.1. Join Process
4.2.2. Registration
4.3. TSCH and 6top
4.3.1. 6top
4.3.2. Scheduling Functions and the 6top Protocol
4.3.3. 6top and RPL Objective Function Operations
4.3.4. Network Synchronization
4.3.5. Slotframes and CDU Matrix
4.3.6. Distributing the Reservation of Cells
4.4. Schedule Management Mechanisms
4.4.1. Static Scheduling
4.4.2. Neighbor-to-Neighbor Scheduling
4.4.3. Remote Monitoring and Schedule Management
4.4.4. Hop-by-Hop Scheduling
4.5. On Tracks
4.5.1. General Behavior of Tracks
4.5.2. Serial Track
4.5.3. Complex Track with Replication and Elimination
4.5.4. DetNet End-to-End Path
4.5.5. Cell Reuse
4.6. Forwarding Models
4.6.1. Track Forwarding
4.6.2. IPv6 Forwarding
4.6.3. Fragment Forwarding
4.7. Advanced 6TiSCH Routing
4.7.1. Packet Marking and Handling
4.7.2. Replication, Retries, and Elimination
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
6.1. Availability of Remote Services
6.2. Selective Jamming
6.3. MAC-Layer Security
6.4. Time Synchronization
6.5. Validating ASN
6.6. Network Keying and Rekeying
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Related Work in Progress
A.1. Unchartered IETF Work Items
A.1.1. 6TiSCH Zero-Touch Security
A.1.2. 6TiSCH Track Setup
A.1.3. Using BIER in a 6TiSCH Network
A.2. External (Non-IETF) Work Items
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Author's Address
1. Introduction
Wireless networks enable a wide variety of devices of any size to get
interconnected, often at a very low marginal cost per device, at any
range, and in circumstances where wiring may be impractical, for
instance, on fast-moving or rotating devices.
On the other hand, Deterministic Networking maximizes the packet
delivery ratio within a bounded latency so as to enable mission-
critical machine-to-machine (M2M) operations. Applications that need
such networks are presented in [RFC 8578] and [RAW-USE-CASES], which
presents a number of additional use cases for Reliable and Available
Wireless networks (RAW). The considered applications include
professional media, Industrial Automation and Control Systems (IACS),
building automation, in-vehicle command and control, commercial
automation and asset tracking with mobile scenarios, as well as
gaming, drones and edge robotic control, and home automation
applications.
The Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) [RFC 7554] mode of the IEEE
Std 802.15.4 [IEEE802154] Medium Access Control (MAC) was introduced
with the IEEE Std 802.15.4e [IEEE802154e] amendment and is now
retrofitted in the main standard. For all practical purposes, this
document is expected to be insensitive to the revisions of that
standard, which is thus referenced without a date. TSCH is both a
Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) and a Frequency-Division
Multiplexing (FDM) technique, whereby a different channel can be used
for each transmission. TSCH allows the scheduling of transmissions
for deterministic operations and applies to the slower and most
energy-constrained wireless use cases.
The scheduled operation provides for a more reliable experience,
which can be used to monitor and manage resources, e.g., energy and
water, in a more efficient fashion.
Proven deterministic networking standards for use in process control,
including ISA100.11a [ISA100.11a] and WirelessHART [WirelessHART],
have demonstrated the capabilities of the IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH MAC
for high reliability against interference, low-power consumption on
well-known flows, and its applicability for Traffic Engineering (TE)
from a central controller.
To enable the convergence of information technology (IT) and
operational technology (OT) in Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs),
the 6TiSCH architecture supports an IETF suite of protocols over the
IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH MAC to provide IP connectivity for energy and
otherwise constrained wireless devices.
The 6TiSCH architecture relies on IPv6 [RFC 8200] and the use of
routing to provide large scaling capabilities. The addition of a
high-speed federating backbone adds yet another degree of scalability
to the design. The backbone is typically a Layer 2 transit link such
as an Ethernet bridged network, but it can also be a more complex
routed structure.
The 6TiSCH architecture introduces an IPv6 multi-link subnet model
that is composed of a federating backbone and a number of IEEE Std
802.15.4 TSCH low-power wireless networks federated and synchronized
by Backbone Routers. If the backbone is a Layer 2 transit link, then
the Backbone Routers can operate as an IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6
ND) proxy [RFC 4861].
The 6TiSCH architecture leverages 6LoWPAN [RFC 4944] to adapt IPv6 to
the constrained media and the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC 6550] for the distributed routing
operations.
Centralized routing refers to a model where routes are computed and
resources are allocated from a central controller. This is
particularly helpful to schedule deterministic multihop
transmissions. In contrast, distributed routing refers to a model
that relies on concurrent peer-to-peer protocol exchanges for TSCH
resource allocation and routing operations.
The architecture defines mechanisms to establish and maintain routing
and scheduling in a centralized, distributed, or mixed fashion, for
use in multiple OT environments. It is applicable in particular to
highly scalable solutions such as those used in Advanced Metering
Infrastructure [AMI] solutions that leverage distributed routing to
enable multipath forwarding over large LLN meshes.
2. Terminology
2.1. New Terms
The document does not reuse terms from the IEEE Std 802.15.4
[IEEE802154] standard such as "path" or "link", which bear a meaning
that is quite different from classical IETF parlance.
This document adds the following terms:
6TiSCH (IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4): 6TiSCH defines an
adaptation sublayer for IPv6 over TSCH called 6top, a set of
protocols for setting up a TSCH schedule in distributed approach,
and a security solution. 6TiSCH may be extended in the future for
other MAC/Physical Layer (PHY) pairs providing a service similar
to TSCH.
6top (6TiSCH Operation Sublayer): The next higher layer of the IEEE
Std 802.15.4 TSCH MAC layer. 6top provides the abstraction of an
IP link over a TSCH MAC, schedules packets over TSCH cells, and
exposes a management interface to schedule TSCH cells.
6P (6top Protocol): The protocol defined in [RFC 8480]. 6P enables
Layer 2 peers to allocate, move, or de-allocate cells in their
respective schedules to communicate. 6P operates at the 6top
sublayer.
6P transaction: A 2-way or 3-way sequence of 6P messages used by
Layer 2 peers to modify their communication schedule.
ASN (Absolute Slot Number): Defined in [IEEE802154], the ASN is the
total number of timeslots that have elapsed since the Epoch time
when the TSCH network started. Incremented by one at each
timeslot. It is wide enough to not roll over in practice.
bundle: A group of equivalent scheduled cells, i.e., cells
identified by different slotOffset/channelOffset, which are
scheduled for a same purpose, with the same neighbor, with the
same flags, and the same slotframe. The size of the bundle refers
to the number of cells it contains. For a given slotframe length,
the size of the bundle translates directly into bandwidth. A
bundle is a local abstraction that represents a half-duplex link
for either sending or receiving, with bandwidth that amounts to
the sum of the cells in the bundle.
Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 bundle: Bundles are associated with either Layer
2 (switching) or Layer 3 (routing) forwarding operations. A pair
of Layer 3 bundles (one for each direction) maps to an IP link
with a neighbor, whereas a set of Layer 2 bundles (of an
"arbitrary" cardinality and direction) corresponds to the relation
of one or more incoming bundle(s) from the previous-hop
neighbor(s) with one or more outgoing bundle(s) to the next-hop
neighbor(s) along a Track as part of the switching role, which may
include replication and elimination.
CCA (Clear Channel Assessment): A mechanism defined in [IEEE802154]
whereby nodes listen to the channel before sending to detect
ongoing transmissions from other parties. Because the network is
synchronized, CCA cannot be used to detect colliding transmissions
within the same network, but it can be used to detect other radio
networks in the vicinity.
cell: A unit of transmission resource in the CDU matrix, a cell is
identified by a slotOffset and a channelOffset. A cell can be
scheduled or unscheduled.
Channel Distribution/Usage (CDU) matrix: : A matrix of cells (i,j)
representing the spectrum (channel) distribution among the
different nodes in the 6TiSCH network. The CDU matrix has width
in timeslots equal to the period of the network scheduling
operation, and height equal to the number of available channels.
Every cell (i,j) in the CDU, identified by slotOffset/
channelOffset, belongs to a specific chunk.
channelOffset: Identifies a row in the TSCH schedule. The number of
channelOffset values is bounded by the number of available
frequencies. The channelOffset translates into a frequency with a
function that depends on the absolute time when the communication
takes place, resulting in a channel-hopping operation.
chunk: A well-known list of cells, distributed in time and
frequency, within a CDU matrix. A chunk represents a portion of a
CDU matrix. The partition of the CDU matrix in chunks is globally
known by all the nodes in the network to support the appropriation
process, which is a negotiation between nodes within an
interference domain. A node that manages to appropriate a chunk
gets to decide which transmissions will occur over the cells in
the chunk within its interference domain, i.e., a parent node will
decide when the cells within the appropriated chunk are used and
by which node among its children.
CoJP (Constrained Join Protocol): The Constrained Join Protocol
(CoJP) enables a pledge to securely join a 6TiSCH network and
obtain network parameters over a secure channel. "Constrained
Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH" [RFC 9031] defines the minimal
CoJP setup with pre-shared keys defined. In that mode, CoJP can
operate with a single round-trip exchange.
dedicated cell: A cell that is reserved for a given node to transmit
to a specific neighbor.
deterministic network: The generic concept of a deterministic
network is defined in the "Deterministic Networking Architecture"
[RFC 8655] document. When applied to 6TiSCH, it refers to the
reservation of Tracks, which guarantees an end-to-end latency and
optimizes the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) for well-characterized
flows.
distributed cell reservation: A reservation of a cell done by one or
more in-network entities.
distributed Track reservation: A reservation of a Track done by one
or more in-network entities.
EB (Enhanced Beacon): A special frame defined in [IEEE802154] used
by a node, including the Join Proxy (JP), to announce the presence
of the network. It contains enough information for a pledge to
synchronize to the network.
hard cell: A scheduled cell that the 6top sublayer may not relocate.
hopping sequence: Ordered sequence of frequencies, identified by a
Hopping_Sequence_ID, used for channel hopping when translating the
channelOffset value into a frequency.
IE (Information Element): Type-Length-Value containers placed at the
end of the MAC header and used to pass data between layers or
devices. Some IE identifiers are managed by the IEEE
[IEEE802154]. Some IE identifiers are managed by the IETF
[RFC 8137]. [RFC 9032] uses one subtype to support the selection of
the Join Proxy.
join process: The overall process that includes the discovery of the
network by pledge(s) and the execution of the join protocol.
join protocol: The protocol that allows the pledge to join the
network. The join protocol encompasses authentication,
authorization, and parameter distribution. The join protocol is
executed between the pledge and the JRC.
joined node: The new device after having completed the join process,
often just called a node.
JP (Join Proxy): A node already part of the 6TiSCH network that
serves as a relay to provide connectivity between the pledge and
the JRC. The JP announces the presence of the network by
regularly sending EB frames.
JRC (Join Registrar/Coordinator): Central entity responsible for the
authentication, authorization, and configuration of the pledge.
link: A communication facility or medium over which nodes can
communicate at the link layer, which is the layer immediately
below IP. In 6TiSCH, the concept is implemented as a collection
of Layer 3 bundles. Note: the IETF parlance for the term "link"
is adopted, as opposed to the IEEE Std 802.15.4 terminology.
operational technology: OT refers to technology used in automation,
for instance in industrial control networks. The convergence of
IT and OT is the main object of the Industrial Internet of Things
(IIOT).
pledge: A new device that attempts to join a 6TiSCH network.
(to) relocate a cell: The action operated by the 6top sublayer of
changing the slotOffset and/or channelOffset of a soft cell.
(to) schedule a cell: The action of turning an unscheduled cell into
a scheduled cell.
scheduled cell: A cell that is assigned a neighbor MAC address
(broadcast address is also possible) and one or more of the
following flags: TX, RX, Shared, and Timekeeping. A scheduled
cell can be used by the IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH implementation to
communicate. A scheduled cell can either be a hard or a soft
cell.
SF (6top Scheduling Function): The cell management entity that adds
or deletes cells dynamically based on application networking
requirements. The cell negotiation with a neighbor is done using
6P.
SFID (6top Scheduling Function Identifier): A 4-bit field
identifying an SF.
shared cell: A cell marked with both the TX and Shared flags. This
cell can be used by more than one transmitter node. A back-off
algorithm is used to resolve contention.
slotframe: A collection of timeslots repeating in time, analogous to
a superframe in that it defines periods of communication
opportunities. It is characterized by a slotframe_ID and a
slotframe_size. Multiple slotframes can coexist in a node's
schedule, i.e., a node can have multiple activities scheduled in
different slotframes based on the priority of its packets/traffic
flows. The timeslots in the slotframe are indexed by the
slotOffset; the first timeslot is at slotOffset 0.
slotOffset: A column in the TSCH schedule, i.e., the number of
timeslots since the beginning of the current iteration of the
slotframe.
soft cell: A scheduled cell that the 6top sublayer can relocate.
time source neighbor: A neighbor that a node uses as its time
reference, and to which it needs to keep its clock synchronized.
timeslot: A basic communication unit in TSCH that allows a
transmitter node to send a frame to a receiver neighbor and that
allows the receiver neighbor to optionally send back an
acknowledgment.
Track: A Track is a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that is used as a
complex multihop path to the destination(s) of the path. In the
case of unicast traffic, the Track is a Destination-Oriented DAG
(DODAG) where the Root of the DODAG is the destination of the
unicast traffic. A Track enables replication, elimination, and
reordering functions on the way (more on those functions in
[RFC 8655]). A Track reservation locks physical resources such as
cells and buffers in every node along the DODAG. A Track is
associated with an owner, which can be for instance the
destination of the Track.
TrackID: A TrackID is either globally unique or locally unique to
the Track owner, in which case the identification of the owner
must be provided together with the TrackID to provide a full
reference to the Track. Typically, the Track owner is the ingress
of the Track, the IPv6 source address of packets along the Track
can be used as identification of the owner, and a local InstanceID
[RFC 6550] in the namespace of that owner can be used as TrackID.
If the Track is reversible, then the owner is found in the IPv6
destination address of a packet coming back along the Track. In
that case, a RPL Packet Information [RFC 6550] in an IPv6 packet
can unambiguously identify the Track and can be expressed in a
compressed form using [RFC 8138].
TSCH: A medium access mode of the IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE802154]
standard that uses time synchronization to achieve ultra-low-power
operation and channel hopping to enable high reliability.
TSCH Schedule: A matrix of cells, with each cell indexed by a
slotOffset and a channelOffset. The TSCH schedule contains all
the scheduled cells from all slotframes and is sufficient to
qualify the communication in the TSCH network. The number of
channelOffset values (the "height" of the matrix) is equal to the
number of available frequencies.
Unscheduled Cell: A cell that is not used by the IEEE Std 802.15.4
TSCH implementation.
2.2. Abbreviations
This document uses the following abbreviations:
6BBR: 6LoWPAN Backbone Router (router with a proxy ND function)
6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router (authoritative on Duplicate Address
Detection (DAD))
6LN: 6LoWPAN Node
6LR: 6LoWPAN Router (relay to the registration process)
6CIO: Capability Indication Option
(E)ARO: (Extended) Address Registration Option
(E)DAR: (Extended) Duplicate Address Request
(E)DAC: (Extended) Duplicate Address Confirmation
DAD: Duplicate Address Detection
DODAG: Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph
LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network (a typical IoT network)
NA: Neighbor Advertisement
NCE: Neighbor Cache Entry
ND: Neighbor Discovery
NDP: Neighbor Discovery Protocol
PCE: Path Computation Element
NME: Network Management Entity
ROVR: Registration Ownership Verifier (pronounced rover)
RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (pronounced ripple)
RA: Router Advertisement
RS: Router Solicitation
TSCH: Time-Slotted Channel Hopping
TID: Transaction ID (a sequence counter in the EARO)
2.3. Related Documents
The document conforms to the terms and models described in [RFC 3444]
and [RFC 5889], uses the vocabulary and the concepts defined in
[RFC 4291] for the IPv6 architecture, and refers to [RFC 4080] for
reservation.
The document uses domain-specific terminology defined or referenced
in the following:
* 6LoWPAN ND: "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)" [RFC 6775]
and "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery" [RFC 8505],
* "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and Lossy Networks"
[RFC 7102], and
* RPL: "Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" [RFC 6552] and "RPL: IPv6
Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC 6550].
Other terms in use in LLNs are found in "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks" [RFC 7228].
Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
that are discussed in the following:
* "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)" [RFC 4861] and
* "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC 4862].
In addition, readers would benefit from reading the following prior
to this specification for a clear understanding of the art in ND-
proxying and binding:
* "Problem Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing" [RFC 6606],
* "Multi-Link Subnet Issues" [RFC 4903], and
* "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC 4919].
3. High-Level Architecture
3.1. A Non-broadcast Multi-access Radio Mesh Network
A 6TiSCH network is an IPv6 [RFC 8200] subnet that, in its basic
configuration illustrated in Figure 1, is a single Low-Power and
Lossy Network (LLN) operating over a synchronized TSCH-based mesh.
---+-------- ............ ------------
| External Network |
| +-----+
+-----+ | NME |
| | LLN Border | PCE |
| | router (6LBR) +-----+
+-----+
o o o
o o o o o
o o 6LoWPAN + RPL o o
o o o o
Figure 1: Basic Configuration of a 6TiSCH Network
Inside a 6TiSCH LLN, nodes rely on 6LoWPAN header compression
(6LoWPAN HC) [RFC 6282] to encode IPv6 packets. From the perspective
of the network layer, a single LLN interface (typically an IEEE Std
802.15.4-compliant radio) may be seen as a collection of links with
different capabilities for unicast or multicast services.
6TiSCH nodes join a mesh network by attaching to nodes that are
already members of the mesh (see Section 4.2.1). The security
aspects of the join process are further detailed in Section 6. In a
mesh network, 6TiSCH nodes are not necessarily reachable from one
another at Layer 2, and an LLN may span over multiple links.
This forms a homogeneous non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) subnet,
which is beyond the scope of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (IPv6 ND)
[RFC 4861] [RFC 4862]. 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (6LoWPAN ND)
[RFC 6775] [RFC 8505] specifies extensions to IPv6 ND that enable ND
operations in this type of subnet that can be protected against
address theft and impersonation with [RFC 8928].
Once it has joined the 6TiSCH network, a node acquires IPv6 addresses
and registers them using 6LoWPAN ND. This guarantees that the
addresses are unique and protects the address ownership over the
subnet, more in Section 4.2.2.
Within the NBMA subnet, RPL [RFC 6550] enables routing in the so-
called "route-over" fashion, either in storing (stateful) or non-
storing (stateless, with routing headers) mode. From there, some
nodes can act as routers for 6LoWPAN ND and RPL operations, as
detailed in Section 4.1.
With TSCH, devices are time synchronized at the MAC level. The use
of a particular RPL Instance for time synchronization is discussed in
Section 4.3.4. With this mechanism, the time synchronization starts
at the RPL Root and follows the RPL loopless routing topology.
RPL forms Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs)
within Instances of the protocol, each Instance being associated with
an Objective Function (OF) to form a routing topology. A particular
6TiSCH node, the LLN Border Router (6LBR), acts as RPL Root, 6LoWPAN
HC terminator, and Border Router for the LLN to the outside. The
6LBR is usually powered. More on RPL Instances can be found in
Section 3.1 of RPL [RFC 6550], in particular "3.1.2 RPL Identifiers"
and "3.1.3 Instances, DODAGs, and DODAG Versions". RPL adds
artifacts in the data packets that are compressed with a 6LoWPAN
Routing Header (6LoRH) [RFC 8138]. In a preexisting network, the
compression can be globally turned on in a DODAG once all nodes are
migrated to support [RFC 8138] using [RFC 9035].
Additional routing and scheduling protocols may be deployed to
establish on-demand, peer-to-peer routes with particular
characteristics inside the 6TiSCH network. This may be achieved in a
centralized fashion by a Path Computation Element (PCE) [PCE] that
programs both the routes and the schedules inside the 6TiSCH nodes or
in a distributed fashion by using a reactive routing protocol and a
hop-by-hop scheduling protocol.
This architecture expects that a 6LoWPAN node can connect as a leaf
to a RPL network, where the leaf support is the minimal functionality
to connect as a host to a RPL network without the need to participate
in the full routing protocol. The architecture also expects that a
6LoWPAN node that is unaware of RPL may also connect as described in
[RFC 9010].
3.2. A Multi-Link Subnet Model
An extended configuration of the subnet comprises multiple LLNs as
illustrated in Figure 2. In the extended configuration, a Routing
Registrar [RFC 8505] may be connected to the node that acts as the RPL
Root and/or 6LoWPAN 6LBR and provides connectivity to the larger
campus or factory plant network over a high-speed backbone or a back-
haul link. The Routing Registrar may perform IPv6 ND proxy
operations; redistribute the registration in a routing protocol such
as OSPF [RFC 5340] or BGP [RFC 2545]; or inject a route in a mobility
protocol such as Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC 6275], Network Mobility
(NEMO) [RFC 3963], or Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC 6830].
Multiple LLNs can be interconnected and possibly synchronized over a
backbone, which can be wired or wireless. The backbone can operate
with IPv6 ND procedures [RFC 4861] [RFC 4862] or a hybrid of IPv6 ND
and 6LoWPAN ND [RFC 6775] [RFC 8505] [RFC 8928].
|
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
(default) | | (Optional) | | | | IPv6
Router | | 6LBR | | | | Node
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| Backbone side | |
--------+---+--------------------+-+---------------+------+---
| | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| Routing | | Routing | | Routing |
| Registrar | | Registrar | | Registrar |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
o Wireless side o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o 6TiSCH o 6TiSCH o o o o 6TiSCH o
o o LLN o o o o LLN o o LLN o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Figure 2: Extended Configuration of a 6TiSCH Network
A Routing Registrar that performs proxy IPv6 ND operations over the
backbone on behalf of the 6TiSCH nodes is called a Backbone Router
(6BBR) [RFC 8929]. The 6BBRs are placed along the wireless edge of a
backbone and federate multiple wireless links to form a single multi-
link subnet. The 6BBRs synchronize with one another over the
backbone, so as to ensure that the multiple LLNs that form the IPv6
subnet stay tightly synchronized.
The use of multicast can also be reduced on the backbone with a
registrar that would contribute to Duplicate Address Detection as
well as address lookup using only unicast request/response exchanges.
[ND-UNICAST-LOOKUP] is a proposed method that presents an example of
how this could be achieved with an extension of [RFC 8505], using an
optional 6LBR as a subnet-level registrar, as illustrated in
Figure 2.
As detailed in Section 4.1, the 6LBR that serves the LLN and the Root
of the RPL network need to share information about the devices that
are learned through either 6LoWPAN ND or RPL, but not both. The
preferred way of achieving this is to co-locate or combine them. The
combined RPL Root and 6LBR may be co-located with the 6BBR, or
directly attached to the 6BBR. In the latter case, it leverages the
extended registration process defined in [RFC 8505] to proxy the
6LoWPAN ND registration to the 6BBR on behalf of the LLN nodes, so
that the 6BBR may in turn perform classical ND operations over the
backbone as a proxy.
The "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [RFC 8655] studies Layer 3
aspects of Deterministic Networks and covers networks that span
multiple Layer 2 domains. If the backbone is deterministic (such as
defined by the Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group at IEEE),
then the Backbone Router ensures that the end-to-end deterministic
behavior is maintained between the LLN and the backbone.
3.3. TSCH: a Deterministic MAC Layer
Though at a different time scale (several orders of magnitude), both
IEEE Std 802.1 TSN and IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH standards provide
deterministic capabilities to the point that a packet pertaining to a
certain flow may traverse a network from node to node following a
precise schedule, as a train that enters and then leaves intermediate
stations at precise times along its path.
With TSCH, time is formatted into timeslots, and individual
communication cells are allocated to unicast or broadcast
communication at the MAC level. The time-slotted operation reduces
collisions, saves energy, and enables more closely engineering the
network for deterministic properties. The channel-hopping aspect is
a simple and efficient technique to combat multipath fading and co-
channel interference.
6TiSCH builds on the IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH MAC and inherits its
advanced capabilities to enable them in multiple environments where
they can be leveraged to improve automated operations. The 6TiSCH
architecture also inherits the capability to perform a centralized
route computation to achieve deterministic properties, though it
relies on the IETF DetNet architecture [RFC 8655] and IETF components
such as the PCE [PCE] for the protocol aspects.
On top of this inheritance, 6TiSCH adds capabilities for distributed
routing and scheduling operations based on RPL and capabilities for
negotiating schedule adjustments between peers. These distributed
routing and scheduling operations simplify the deployment of TSCH
networks and enable wireless solutions in a larger variety of use
cases from operational technology in general. Examples of such use
cases in industrial environments include plant setup and
decommissioning, as well as monitoring a multiplicity of minor
notifications such as corrosion measurements, events, and access of
local devices by mobile workers.
3.4. Scheduling TSCH
A scheduling operation allocates cells in a TDM/FDM matrix called a
CDU either to individual transmissions or as multi-access shared
resources. The CDU matrix can be formatted in chunks that can be
allocated exclusively to particular nodes to enable distributed
scheduling without collision. More in Section 4.3.5.
At the MAC layer, the schedule of a 6TiSCH node is the collection of
the timeslots at which it must wake up for transmission, and the
channels to which it should either send or listen at those times.
The schedule is expressed as one or more repeating slotframes.
Slotframes may collide and require a device to wake up at a same
time, in which case the slotframe with the highest priority is
actionable.
The 6top sublayer (see Section 4.3 for more) hides the complexity of
the schedule from the upper layers. The link abstraction that IP
traffic utilizes is composed of a pair of Layer 3 cell bundles, one
to receive and one to transmit. Some of the cells may be shared, in
which case the 6top sublayer must perform some arbitration.
Scheduling enables multiple simultaneous communications in a same
interference domain using different channels; but a node equipped
with a single radio can only either transmit or receive on one
channel at any point of time. Scheduled cells that fulfill the same
role, e.g., receive IP packets from a peer, are grouped in bundles.
The 6TiSCH architecture identifies four ways a schedule can be
managed and CDU cells can be allocated: Static Scheduling, Neighbor-
to-Neighbor Scheduling, Centralized (or Remote) Monitoring and
Schedule Management, and Hop-by-Hop Scheduling.
Static Scheduling: This refers to the minimal 6TiSCH operation
whereby a static schedule is configured for the whole network for
use in a Slotted ALOHA [S-ALOHA] fashion. The static schedule is
distributed through the native methods in the TSCH MAC layer and
does not preclude other scheduling operations coexisting on a same
6TiSCH network. A static schedule is necessary for basic
operations such as the join process and for interoperability
during the network formation, which is specified as part of the
Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration [RFC 8180].
Neighbor-to-Neighbor Scheduling: This refers to the dynamic
adaptation of the bandwidth of the links that are used for IPv6
traffic between adjacent peers. Scheduling Functions such as the
"6TiSCH Minimal Scheduling Function (MSF)" [RFC 9033] influence the
operation of the MAC layer to add, update, and remove cells in its
own and its peer's schedules using 6P [RFC 8480] for the
negotiation of the MAC resources.
Centralized (or Remote) Monitoring and Schedule Management: This
refers to the central computation of a schedule and the capability
to forward a frame based on the cell of arrival. In that case,
the related portion of the device schedule as well as other device
resources are managed by an abstract Network Management Entity
(NME), which may cooperate with the PCE to minimize the
interaction with, and the load on, the constrained device. This
model is the TSCH adaption of the DetNet architecture [RFC 8655],
and it enables Traffic Engineering with deterministic properties.
Hop-by-Hop Scheduling: This refers to the possibility of reserving
cells along a path for a particular flow using a distributed
mechanism.
It is not expected that all use cases will require all those
mechanisms. Static Scheduling with minimal configuration is the only
one that is expected in all implementations, since it provides a
simple and solid basis for convergecast routing and time
distribution.
A deeper dive into those mechanisms can be found in Section 4.4.
3.5. Distributed vs. Centralized Routing
6TiSCH enables a mixed model of centralized routes and distributed
routes. Centralized routes can, for example, be computed by an
entity such as a PCE. 6TiSCH leverages RPL [RFC 6550] for
interoperable, distributed routing operations.
Both methods may inject routes into the routing tables of the 6TiSCH
routers. In either case, each route is associated with a 6TiSCH
topology that can be a RPL Instance topology or a Track. The 6TiSCH
topology is indexed by a RPLInstanceID, in a format that reuses the
RPLInstanceID as defined in RPL.
RPL [RFC 6550] is applicable to Static Scheduling and Neighbor-to-
Neighbor Scheduling. The architecture also supports a centralized
routing model for Remote Monitoring and Schedule Management. It is
expected that a routing protocol that is more optimized for point-to-
point routing than RPL [RFC 6550], such as the "Asymmetric
AODV-P2P-RPL in Low-Power and Lossy Networks" (AODV-RPL) [AODV-RPL],
which derives from the "Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODVv2)
Routing" [AODVv2], will be selected for Hop-by-Hop Scheduling.
Both RPL and PCE rely on shared sources such as policies to define
global and local RPLInstanceIDs that can be used by either method.
It is possible for centralized and distributed routing to share the
same topology. Generally they will operate in different slotframes,
and centralized routes will be used for scheduled traffic and will
have precedence over distributed routes in case of conflict between
the slotframes.
3.6. Forwarding over TSCH
The 6TiSCH architecture supports three different forwarding models.
One is the classical IPv6 Forwarding, where the node selects a
feasible successor at Layer 3 on a per-packet basis and based on its
routing table. The second derives from Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) for
so-called Track Forwarding, whereby a frame received at a particular
timeslot can be switched into another timeslot at Layer 2 without
regard to the upper-layer protocol. The third model is the 6LoWPAN
Fragment Forwarding, which allows the forwarding individual 6LoWPAN
fragments along a route that is set up by the first fragment.
In more detail:
IPv6 Forwarding: This is the classical IP forwarding model, with a
Routing Information Base (RIB) that is installed by RPL and used
to select a feasible successor per packet. The packet is placed
on an outgoing link, which the 6top sublayer maps into a (Layer 3)
bundle of cells, and scheduled for transmission based on QoS
parameters. Besides RPL, this model also applies to any routing
protocol that may be operated in the 6TiSCH network and
corresponds to all the distributed scheduling models: Static,
Neighbor-to-Neighbor, and Hop-by-Hop Scheduling.
GMPLS Track Forwarding: This model corresponds to the Remote
Monitoring and Schedule Management. In this model, a central
controller (hosting a PCE) computes and installs the schedules in
the devices per flow. The incoming (Layer 2) bundle of cells from
the previous node along the path determines the outgoing (Layer 2)
bundle towards the next hop for that flow as determined by the
PCE. The programmed sequence for bundles is called a Track and
can assume DAG shapes that are more complex than a simple direct
sequence of nodes.
6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding: This is a hybrid model that derives
from IPv6 forwarding for the case where packets must be fragmented
at the 6LoWPAN sublayer. The first fragment is forwarded like any
IPv6 packet and leaves a state in the intermediate hops to enable
forwarding of the next fragments that do not have an IP header
without the need to recompose the packet at every hop.
A deeper dive into these operations can be found in Section 4.6.
Table 1 summarizes how the forwarding models apply to the various
routing and scheduling possibilities:
+==================+==========+======================+
| Forwarding Model | Routing | Scheduling |
+==================+==========+======================+
| classical IPv6 / | RPL | Static (Minimal |
| 6LoWPAN Fragment | | Configuration) |
| | +----------------------+
| | | Neighbor-to-Neighbor |
| | | (SF+6P) |
| +----------+----------------------+
| | Reactive | Hop-by-Hop (AODV- |
| | | RPL) |
+------------------+----------+----------------------+
| GMPLS Track | PCE | Remote Monitoring |
| Forwarding | | and Schedule Mgt |
+------------------+----------+----------------------+
Table 1
3.7. 6TiSCH Stack
The IETF proposes multiple techniques for implementing functions
related to routing, transport, or security.
The 6TiSCH architecture limits the possible variations of the stack
and recommends a number of base elements for LLN applications to
control the complexity of possible deployments and device
interactions and to limit the size of the resulting object code. In
particular, UDP [RFC 768], IPv6 [RFC 8200], and the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC 7252] are used as the transport/
binding of choice for applications and management as opposed to TCP
and HTTP.
The resulting protocol stack is represented in Figure 3:
+--------+--------+
| Applis | CoJP |
+--------+--------+--------------+-----+
| CoAP / OSCORE | 6LoWPAN ND | RPL |
+-----------------+--------------+-----+
| UDP | ICMPv6 |
+-----------------+--------------------+
| IPv6 |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 6LoWPAN HC / 6LoRH HC | Scheduling Functions |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 6top inc. 6top Protocol |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: 6TiSCH Protocol Stack
RPL is the routing protocol of choice for LLNs. So far, there is no
identified need to define a 6TiSCH-specific Objective Function. The
Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration [RFC 8180] describes the operation of RPL
over a static schedule used in a Slotted ALOHA fashion [S-ALOHA],
whereby all active slots may be used for emission or reception of
both unicast and multicast frames.
6LoWPAN header compression [RFC 6282] is used to compress the IPv6 and
UDP headers, whereas the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH) [RFC 8138] is
used to compress the RPL artifacts in the IPv6 data packets,
including the RPL Packet Information (RPI), the IP-in-IP
encapsulation to/from the RPL Root, and the Source Routing Header
(SRH) in non-storing mode. "Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header
for Source Routes, and IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data
Plane" [RFC 9008] provides the details on when headers or
encapsulation are needed.
The Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)
[RFC 8613] is leveraged by the Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) and is
expected to be the primary protocol for the protection of the
application payload as well. The application payload may also be
protected by the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC 6347]
sitting either under CoAP or over CoAP so it can traverse proxies.
The 6TiSCH Operation Sublayer (6top) is a sublayer of a Logical Link
Control (LLC) that provides the abstraction of an IP link over a TSCH
MAC and schedules packets over TSCH cells, as further discussed in
the next sections, providing in particular dynamic cell allocation
with the 6top Protocol (6P) [RFC 8480].
The reference stack presented in this document was implemented and
interoperability-tested by a combination of open source, IETF, and
ETSI efforts. One goal is to help other bodies to adopt the stack as
a whole, making the effort to move to an IPv6-based IoT stack easier.
For a particular environment, some of the choices that are available
in this architecture may not be relevant. For instance, RPL is not
required for star topologies and mesh-under Layer 2 routed networks,
and the 6LoWPAN compression may not be sufficient for ultra-
constrained cases such as some Low-Power Wide Area (LPWA) networks.
In such cases, it is perfectly doable to adopt a subset of the
selection that is presented hereafter and then select alternate
components to complete the solution wherever needed.
3.8. Communication Paradigms and Interaction Models
Section 2.1 provides the terms of Communication Paradigms and
Interaction Models in combination with "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models" [RFC 3444]. A Communication
Paradigm is an abstract view of a protocol exchange and has an
Information Model for the information that is being exchanged. In
contrast, an Interaction Model is more refined and points to standard
operation such as a Representational State Transfer (REST) "GET"
operation and matches a Data Model for the data that is provided over
the protocol exchange.
Section 2.1.3 of [RPL-APPLICABILITY] and its following sections
discuss application-layer paradigms such as source-sink, which is a
multipeer-to-multipeer model primarily used for alarms and alerts,
publish-subscribe, which is typically used for sensor data, as well
as peer-to-peer and peer-to-multipeer communications.
Additional considerations on duocast -- one sender, two receivers for
redundancy -- and its N-cast generalization are also provided. Those
paradigms are frequently used in industrial automation, which is a
major use case for IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH wireless networks with
[ISA100.11a] and [WirelessHART], which provides a wireless access to
[HART] applications and devices.
This document focuses on Communication Paradigms and Interaction
Models for packet forwarding and TSCH resources (cells) management.
Management mechanisms for the TSCH schedule at the link layer (one
hop), network layer (multihop along a Track), and application layer
(remote control) are discussed in Section 4.4. Link-layer frame
forwarding interactions are discussed in Section 4.6, and network-
layer packet routing is addressed in Section 4.7.
4. Architecture Components
4.1. 6LoWPAN (and RPL)
A RPL DODAG is formed of a Root, a collection of routers, and leaves
that are hosts. Hosts are nodes that do not forward packets that
they did not generate. RPL-aware leaves will participate in RPL to
advertise their own addresses, whereas RPL-unaware leaves depend on a
connected RPL router to do so. RPL interacts with 6LoWPAN ND at
multiple levels, in particular at the Root and in the RPL-unaware
leaves.
4.1.1. RPL-Unaware Leaves and 6LoWPAN ND
RPL needs a set of information to advertise a leaf node through a
Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) message and establish
reachability.
"Routing for RPL Leaves" [RFC 9010] details the basic interaction of
6LoWPAN ND and RPL and enables a plain 6LN that supports [RFC 8505] to
obtain return connectivity via the RPL network as a RPL-unaware leaf.
The leaf indicates that it requires reachability services for the
Registered Address from a Routing Registrar by setting an 'R' flag in
the Extended Address Registration Option [RFC 8505], and it provides a
TID that maps to the "Path Sequence" defined in Section 6.7.8 of
[RFC 6550], and its operation is defined in Section 7.2 of [RFC 6550].
[RFC 9010] also enables the leaf to signal with the RPLInstanceID that
it wants to participate by using the Opaque field of the EARO. On
the backbone, the RPLInstanceID is expected to be mapped to an
overlay that matches the RPL Instance, e.g., a Virtual LAN (VLAN) or
a virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) instance.
Though, at the time of this writing, the above specification enables
a model where the separation is possible, this architecture
recommends co-locating the functions of 6LBR and RPL Root.
4.1.2. 6LBR and RPL Root
With the 6LoWPAN ND [RFC 6775], information on the 6LBR is
disseminated via an Authoritative Border Router Option (ABRO) in RA
messages. [RFC 8505] extends [RFC 6775] to enable a registration for
routing and proxy ND. The capability to support [RFC 8505] is
indicated in the 6LoWPAN Capability Indication Option (6CIO). The
discovery and liveliness of the RPL Root are obtained through RPL
[RFC 6550] itself.
When 6LoWPAN ND is coupled with RPL, the 6LBR and RPL Root
functionalities are co-located in order that the address of the 6LBR
is indicated by RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages and to
associate the ROVR from the Extended Duplicate Address Request/
Confirmation (EDAR/EDAC) exchange [RFC 8505] with the state that is
maintained by RPL.
Section 7 of [RFC 9010] specifies how the DAO messages are used to
reconfirm the registration, thus eliminating a duplication of
functionality between DAO and EDAR/EDAC messages, as illustrated in
Figure 6. [RFC 9010] also provides the protocol elements that are
needed when the 6LBR and RPL Root functionalities are not co-located.
Even though the Root of the RPL network is integrated with the 6LBR,
it is logically separated from the Backbone Router (6BBR) that is
used to connect the 6TiSCH LLN to the backbone. This way, the Root
has all information from 6LoWPAN ND and RPL about the LLN devices
attached to it.
This architecture also expects that the Root of the RPL network
(proxy-)registers the 6TiSCH nodes on their behalf to the 6BBR, for
whatever operation the 6BBR performs on the backbone, such as ND
proxy or redistribution in a routing protocol. This relies on an
extension of the 6LoWPAN ND registration described in [RFC 8929].
This model supports the movement of a 6TiSCH device across the multi-
link subnet and allows the proxy registration of 6TiSCH nodes deep
into the 6TiSCH LLN by the 6LBR / RPL Root. This is why in [RFC 8505]
the Registered Address is signaled in the Target Address field of the
Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message as opposed to the IPv6 Source
Address, which, in the case of a proxy registration, is that of the
6LBR / RPL Root itself.
4.2. Network Access and Addressing
4.2.1. Join Process
A new device, called the pledge, undergoes the join protocol to
become a node in a 6TiSCH network. This usually occurs only once
when the device is first powered on. The pledge communicates with
the Join Registrar/Coordinator (JRC) of the network through a Join
Proxy (JP), a radio neighbor of the pledge.
The JP is discovered though MAC-layer beacons. When multiple JPs
from possibly multiple networks are visible, using trial and error
until an acceptable position in the right network is obtained becomes
inefficient. [RFC 9032] adds a new subtype in the Information Element
that was delegated to the IETF [RFC 8137] and provides visibility into
the network that can be joined and the willingness of the JP and the
Root to be used by the pledge.
The join protocol provides the following functionality:
* Mutual authentication
* Authorization
* Parameter distribution to the pledge over a secure channel
The Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH [RFC 9031] defines the
minimal mechanisms required for this join process to occur in a
secure manner. The specification defines the Constrained Join
Protocol (CoJP), which is used to distribute the parameters to the
pledge over a secure session established through OSCORE [RFC 8613] and
which describes the secure configuration of the network stack. In
the minimal setting with pre-shared keys (PSKs), CoJP allows the
pledge to join after a single round-trip exchange with the JRC. The
provisioning of the PSK to the pledge and the JRC needs to be done
out of band, through a 'one-touch' bootstrapping process, which
effectively enrolls the pledge into the domain managed by the JRC.
In certain use cases, the 'one-touch' bootstrapping is not feasible
due to the operational constraints, and the enrollment of the pledge
into the domain needs to occur in-band. This is handled through a
'zero-touch' extension of the Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH.
The zero-touch extension [ZEROTOUCH-JOIN] leverages the
"Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)" [RFC 8995]
work to establish a shared secret between a pledge and the JRC
without necessarily having them belong to a common (security) domain
at join time. This happens through inter-domain communication
occurring between the JRC of the network and the domain of the
pledge, represented by a fourth entity, Manufacturer Authorized
Signing Authority (MASA). Once the zero-touch exchange completes,
the CoJP exchange defined in [RFC 9031] is carried over the secure
session established between the pledge and the JRC.
Figure 4 depicts the join process and where a Link-Local Address
(LLA) is used, versus a Global Unicast Address (GUA).
6LoWPAN Node 6LR 6LBR Join Registrar MASA
(pledge) (Join Proxy) (Root) /Coordinator (JRC)
| | | | |
| 6LoWPAN ND |6LoWPAN ND+RPL | IPv6 network |IPv6 network |
| LLN link |Route-Over mesh|(the Internet)|(the Internet)|
| | | | |
| Layer 2 | | | |
|Enhanced Beacon| | | |
|<--------------| | | |
| | | | |
| NS (EARO) | | | |
| (for the LLA) | | | |
|-------------->| | | |
| NA (EARO) | | | |
|<--------------| | | |
| | | | |
| (Zero-touch | | | |
| handshake) | (Zero-touch handshake) | (Zero-touch |
| using LLA | using GUA | handshake) |
|<------------->|<---------------------------->|<------------>|
| | | | |
| CoJP Join Req | | | | \
| using LLA | | | | |
|-------------->| | | | |
| | CoJP Join Request | | |
| | using GUA | | |
| |----------------------------->| | | C
| | | | | | o
| | CoJP Join Response | | | J
| | using GUA | | | P
| |<-----------------------------| | |
|CoJP Join Resp | | | | |
| using LLA | | | | |
|<--------------| | | | /
| | | | |
Figure 4: Join Process in a Multi-Link Subnet. Parentheses ()
denote optional exchanges.
4.2.2. Registration
Once the pledge successfully completes the CoJP exchange and becomes
a network node, it obtains the network prefix from neighboring
routers and registers its IPv6 addresses. As detailed in
Section 4.1, the combined 6LoWPAN ND 6LBR and Root of the RPL network
learn information such as an identifier (device EUI-64 [RFC 6775] or a
ROVR [RFC 8505] (from 6LoWPAN ND)) and the updated Sequence Number
(from RPL), and perform 6LoWPAN ND proxy registration to the 6BBR on
behalf of the LLN nodes.
Figure 5 illustrates the initial IPv6 signaling that enables a 6LN to
form a global address and register it to a 6LBR using 6LoWPAN ND
[RFC 8505]. It is then carried over RPL to the RPL Root and then to
the 6BBR. This flow happens just once when the address is created
and first registered.
6LoWPAN Node 6LR 6LBR 6BBR
(RPL leaf) (router) (Root)
| | | |
| 6LoWPAN ND |6LoWPAN ND+RPL | 6LoWPAN ND | IPv6 ND
| LLN link |Route-Over mesh|Ethernet/serial| Backbone
| | | |
| RS (mcast) | | |
|-------------->| | |
|-----------> | | |
|------------------> | |
| RA (unicast) | | |
|<--------------| | |
| | | |
| NS(EARO) | | |
|-------------->| | |
| 6LoWPAN ND | Extended DAR | |
| |-------------->| |
| | | NS(EARO) |
| | |-------------->|
| | | | NS-DAD
| | | |------>
| | | | (EARO)
| | | |
| | | NA(EARO) |<timeout>
| | |<--------------|
| | Extended DAC | |
| |<--------------| |
| NA(EARO) | | |
|<--------------| | |
| | | |
Figure 5: Initial Registration Flow over Multi-Link Subnet
Figure 6 illustrates the repeating IPv6 signaling that enables a 6LN
to keep a global address alive and registered with its 6LBR using
6LoWPAN ND to the 6LR, RPL to the RPL Root, and then 6LoWPAN ND again
to the 6BBR, which avoids repeating the Extended DAR/DAC flow across
the network when RPL can suffice as a keep-alive mechanism.
6LoWPAN Node 6LR 6LBR 6BBR
(RPL leaf) (router) (Root)
| | | |
| 6LoWPAN ND |6LoWPAN ND+RPL | 6LoWPAN ND | IPv6 ND
| LLN link |Route-Over mesh| ant IPv6 link | Backbone
| | |
| | | |
| NS(EARO) | | |
|-------------->| | |
| NA(EARO) | | |
|<--------------| | |
| | DAO | |
| |-------------->| |
| | DAO-ACK | |
| |<--------------| |
| | | NS(EARO) |
| | |-------------->|
| | | NA(EARO) |
| | |<--------------|
| | | |
| | | |
Figure 6: Next Registration Flow over Multi-Link Subnet
As the network builds up, a node should start as a leaf to join the
RPL network and may later turn into both a RPL-capable router and a
6LR, so as to accept leaf nodes recursively joining the network.
4.3. TSCH and 6top
4.3.1. 6top
6TiSCH expects a high degree of scalability together with a
distributed routing functionality based on RPL. To achieve this
goal, the spectrum must be allocated in a way that allows for spatial
reuse between zones that will not interfere with one another. In a
large and spatially distributed network, a 6TiSCH node is often in a
good position to determine usage of the spectrum in its vicinity.
With 6TiSCH, the abstraction of an IPv6 link is implemented as a pair
of bundles of cells, one in each direction. IP links are only
enabled between RPL parents and children. The 6TiSCH operation is
optimal when the size of a bundle minimizes both the energy wasted in
idle listening and the packet drops due to congestion loss, while
packets are forwarded within an acceptable latency.
Use cases for distributed routing are often associated with a
statistical distribution of best-effort traffic with variable needs
for bandwidth on each individual link. The 6TiSCH operation can
remain optimal if RPL parents can adjust, dynamically and with enough
reactivity to match the variations of best-effort traffic, the amount
of bandwidth that is used to communicate between themselves and their
children, in both directions. In turn, the agility to fulfill the
needs for additional cells improves when the number of interactions
with other devices and the protocol latencies are minimized.
6top is a logical link control sitting between the IP layer and the
TSCH MAC layer, which provides the link abstraction that is required
for IP operations. The 6top Protocol, 6P, which is specified in
[RFC 8480], is one of the services provided by 6top. In particular,
the 6top services are available over a management API that enables an
external management entity to schedule cells and slotframes, and
allows the addition of complementary functionality, for instance, a
Scheduling Function that manages a dynamic schedule based on observed
resource usage as discussed in Section 4.4.2. For this purpose, the
6TiSCH architecture differentiates "soft" cells and "hard" cells.
4.3.1.1. Hard Cells
"Hard" cells are cells that are owned and managed by a separate
scheduling entity (e.g., a PCE) that specifies the slotOffset/
channelOffset of the cells to be added/moved/deleted, in which case
6top can only act as instructed and may not move hard cells in the
TSCH schedule on its own.
4.3.1.2. Soft Cells
In contrast, "soft" cells are cells that 6top can manage locally.
6top contains a monitoring process that monitors the performance of
cells and that can add and remove soft cells in the TSCH schedule to
adapt to the traffic needs, or move one when it performs poorly. To
reserve a soft cell, the higher layer does not indicate the exact
slotOffset/channelOffset of the cell to add, but rather the resulting
bandwidth and QoS requirements. When the monitoring process triggers
a cell reallocation, the two neighbor devices communicating over this
cell negotiate its new position in the TSCH schedule.
4.3.2. Scheduling Functions and the 6top Protocol
In the case of soft cells, the cell management entity that controls
the dynamic attribution of cells to adapt to the dynamics of variable
rate flows is called a Scheduling Function (SF).
There may be multiple SFs that react more or less aggressively to the
dynamics of the network.
An SF may be seen as divided between an upper bandwidth-adaptation
logic that is unaware of the particular technology used to obtain and
release bandwidth and an underlying service that maps those needs in
the actual technology. In the case of TSCH using the 6top Protocol
as illustrated in Figure 7, this means mapping the bandwidth onto
cells.
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
| Scheduling Function | | Scheduling Function |
| Bandwidth adaptation | | Bandwidth adaptation |
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
| Scheduling Function | | Scheduling Function |
| TSCH mapping to cells | | TSCH mapping to cells |
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
| 6top cells negotiation | <- 6P -> | 6top cells negotiation |
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
Device A Device B
Figure 7: SF/6P Stack in 6top
The SF relies on 6top services that implement the 6top Protocol (6P)
[RFC 8480] to negotiate the precise cells that will be allocated or
freed based on the schedule of the peer. For instance, it may be
that a peer wants to use a particular timeslot that is free in its
schedule, but that timeslot is already in use by the other peer to
communicate with a third party on a different cell. 6P enables the
peers to find an agreement in a transactional manner that ensures the
final consistency of the nodes' state.
MSF [RFC 9033] is one of the possible Scheduling Functions. MSF uses
the rendezvous slot from [RFC 8180] for network discovery, neighbor
discovery, and any other broadcast.
For basic unicast communication with any neighbor, each node uses a
receive cell at a well-known slotOffset/channelOffset, which is
derived from a hash of their own MAC address. Nodes can reach any
neighbor by installing a transmit (shared) cell with slotOffset/
channelOffset derived from the neighbor's MAC address.
For child-parent links, MSF continuously monitors the load between
parents and children. It then uses 6P to install or remove unicast
cells whenever the current schedule appears to be under-provisioned
or over-provisioned.
4.3.3. 6top and RPL Objective Function Operations
An implementation of a RPL [RFC 6550] Objective Function (OF), such as
the RPL Objective Function Zero (OF0) [RFC 6552] that is used in the
Minimal 6TiSCH Configuration [RFC 8180] to support RPL over a static
schedule, may leverage for its internal computation the information
maintained by 6top.
An OF may require metrics about reachability, such as the Expected
Transmission Count (ETX) metric [RFC 6551]. 6top creates and
maintains an abstract neighbor table, and this state may be leveraged
to feed an OF and/or store OF information as well. A neighbor table
entry may contain a set of statistics with respect to that specific
neighbor.
The neighbor information may include the time when the last packet
has been received from that neighbor, a set of cell quality metrics,
e.g., received signal strength indication (RSSI) or link quality
indicator (LQI), the number of packets sent to the neighbor, or the
number of packets received from it. This information can be made
available through 6top management APIs and used, for instance, to
compute a Rank Increment that will determine the selection of the
preferred parent.
6top provides statistics about the underlying layer so the OF can be
tuned to the nature of the TSCH MAC layer. 6top also enables the RPL
OF to influence the MAC behavior, for instance, by configuring the
periodicity of IEEE Std 802.15.4 Extended Beacons (EBs). By
augmenting the EB periodicity, it is possible to change the network
dynamics so as to improve the support of devices that may change
their point of attachment in the 6TiSCH network.
Some RPL control messages, such as the DODAG Information Object
(DIO), are ICMPv6 messages that are broadcast to all neighbor nodes.
With 6TiSCH, the broadcast channel requirement is addressed by 6top
by configuring TSCH to provide a broadcast channel, as opposed to,
for instance, piggybacking the DIO messages in Layer 2 Enhanced
Beacons (EBs), which would produce undue timer coupling among layers
and packet size issues, and could conflict with the policy of
production networks where EBs are mostly eliminated to conserve
energy.
4.3.4. Network Synchronization
Nodes in a TSCH network must be time synchronized. A node keeps
synchronized to its time source neighbor through a combination of
frame-based and acknowledgment-based synchronization. To maximize
battery life and network throughput, it is advisable that RPL ICMP
discovery and maintenance traffic (governed by the Trickle timer) be
somehow coordinated with the transmission of time synchronization
packets (especially with Enhanced Beacons).
This could be achieved through an interaction of the 6top sublayer
and the RPL Objective Function, or could be controlled by a
management entity.
Time distribution requires a loop-free structure. Nodes caught in a
synchronization loop will rapidly desynchronize from the network and
become isolated. 6TiSCH uses a RPL DAG with a dedicated global
Instance for the purpose of time synchronization. That Instance is
referred to as the Time Synchronization Global Instance (TSGI). The
TSGI can be operated in either of the three modes that are detailed
in Section 3.1.3 of RPL [RFC 6550], "Instances, DODAGs, and DODAG
Versions". Multiple uncoordinated DODAGs with independent Roots may
be used if all the Roots share a common time source such as the
Global Positioning System (GPS).
In the absence of a common time source, the TSGI should form a single
DODAG with a virtual Root. A backbone network is then used to
synchronize and coordinate RPL operations between the Backbone
Routers that act as sinks for the LLN. Optionally, RPL's periodic
operations may be used to transport the network synchronization.
This may mean that 6top would need to trigger (override) the Trickle
timer if no other traffic has occurred for such a time that nodes may
get out of synchronization.
A node that has not joined the TSGI advertises a MAC-level Join
Priority of 0xFF to notify its neighbors that is not capable of
serving as time parent. A node that has joined the TSGI advertises a
MAC-level Join Priority set to its DAGRank() in that Instance, where
DAGRank() is the operation specified in Section 3.5.1 of [RFC 6550],
"Rank Comparison".
The provisioning of a RPL Root is out of scope for both RPL and this
architecture, whereas RPL enables the propagation of configuration
information down the DODAG. This applies to the TSGI as well; a Root
is configured, or obtains by unspecified means, the knowledge of the
RPLInstanceID for the TSGI. The Root advertises its DagRank in the
TSGI, which must be less than 0xFF, as its Join Priority in its IEEE
Std 802.15.4 EBs.
A node that reads a Join Priority of less than 0xFF should join the
neighbor with the lesser Join Priority and use it as time parent. If
the node is configured to serve as time parent, then the node should
join the TSGI, obtain a Rank in that Instance, and start advertising
its own DagRank in the TSGI as its Join Priority in its EBs.
4.3.5. Slotframes and CDU Matrix
6TiSCH enables IPv6 best-effort (stochastic) transmissions over a MAC
layer that is also capable of scheduled (deterministic)
transmissions. A window of time is defined around the scheduled
transmission where the medium must, as much as practically feasible,
be free of contending energy to ensure that the medium is free of
contending packets when the time comes for a scheduled transmission.
One simple way to obtain such a window is to format time and
frequencies in cells of transmission of equal duration. This is the
method that is adopted in IEEE Std 802.15.4 TSCH as well as the Long
Term Evolution (LTE) of cellular networks.
The 6TiSCH architecture defines a global concept that is called a
Channel Distribution and Usage (CDU) matrix to describe that
formatting of time and frequencies.
A CDU matrix is defined centrally as part of the network definition.
It is a matrix of cells with a height equal to the number of
available channels (indexed by channelOffsets) and a width (in
timeslots) that is the period of the network scheduling operation
(indexed by slotOffsets) for that CDU matrix. There are different
models for scheduling the usage of the cells, which place the
responsibility of avoiding collisions either on a central controller
or on the devices themselves, at an extra cost in terms of energy to
scan for free cells (more in Section 4.4).
The size of a cell is a timeslot duration, and values of 10 to 15
milliseconds are typical in 802.15.4 TSCH to accommodate for the
transmission of a frame and an ack, including the security validation
on the receive side, which may take up to a few milliseconds on some
device architecture.
A CDU matrix iterates over a well-known channel rotation called the
hopping sequence. In a given network, there might be multiple CDU
matrices that operate with different widths, so they have different
durations and represent different periodic operations. It is
recommended that all CDU matrices in a 6TiSCH domain operate with the
same cell duration and are aligned so as to reduce the chances of
interferences from the Slotted ALOHA operations. The knowledge of
the CDU matrices is shared between all the nodes and used in
particular to define slotframes.
A slotframe is a MAC-level abstraction that is common to all nodes
and contains a series of timeslots of equal length and precedence.
It is characterized by a slotframe_ID and a slotframe_size. A
slotframe aligns to a CDU matrix for its parameters, such as number
and duration of timeslots.
Multiple slotframes can coexist in a node schedule, i.e., a node can
have multiple activities scheduled in different slotframes. A
slotframe is associated with a priority that may be related to the
precedence of different 6TiSCH topologies. The slotframes may be
aligned to different CDU matrices and thus have different widths.
There is typically one slotframe for scheduled traffic that has the
highest precedence and one or more slotframe(s) for RPL traffic. The
timeslots in the slotframe are indexed by the slotOffset; the first
cell is at slotOffset 0.
When a packet is received from a higher layer for transmission, 6top
inserts that packet in the outgoing queue that matches the packet
best (Differentiated Services [RFC 2474] can therefore be used). At
each scheduled transmit slot, 6top looks for the frame in all the
outgoing queues that best matches the cells. If a frame is found, it
is given to the TSCH MAC for transmission.
4.3.6. Distributing the Reservation of Cells
The 6TiSCH architecture introduces the concept of chunks
(Section 2.1) to distribute the allocation of the spectrum for a
whole group of cells at a time. The CDU matrix is formatted into a
set of chunks, possibly as illustrated in Figure 8, each of the
chunks identified uniquely by a chunk-ID. The knowledge of this
formatting is shared between all the nodes in a 6TiSCH network. It
could be conveyed during the join process, codified into a profile
document, or obtained using some other mechanism. This is as opposed
to Static Scheduling, which refers to the preprogrammed mechanism
specified in [RFC 8180] and which existed before the distribution of
the chunk formatting.
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
chan.Off. 0 |chnkA|chnkP|chnk7|chnkO|chnk2|chnkK|chnk1| ... |chnkZ|
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
chan.Off. 1 |chnkB|chnkQ|chnkA|chnkP|chnk3|chnkL|chnk2| ... |chnk1|
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
chan.Off. 15 |chnkO|chnk6|chnkN|chnk1|chnkJ|chnkZ|chnkI| ... |chnkG|
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 M
Figure 8: CDU Matrix Partitioning in Chunks
The 6TiSCH architecture envisions a protocol that enables chunk
ownership appropriation whereby a RPL parent discovers a chunk that
is not used in its interference domain, claims the chunk, and then
defends it in case another RPL parent would attempt to appropriate it
while it is in use. The chunk is the basic unit of ownership that is
used in that process.
As a result of the process of chunk ownership appropriation, the RPL
parent has exclusive authority to decide which cell in the
appropriated chunk can be used by which node in its interference
domain. In other words, it is implicitly delegated the right to
manage the portion of the CDU matrix that is represented by the
chunk.
Initially, those cells are added to the heap of free cells, then
dynamically placed into existing bundles, into new bundles, or
allocated opportunistically for one transmission.
Note that a PCE is expected to have precedence in the allocation, so
that a RPL parent would only be able to obtain portions that are not
in use by the PCE.
4.4. Schedule Management Mechanisms
6TiSCH uses four paradigms to manage the TSCH schedule of the LLN
nodes: Static Scheduling, Neighbor-to-Neighbor Scheduling, Remote
Monitoring and Scheduling Management, and Hop-by-Hop Scheduling.
Multiple mechanisms are defined that implement the associated
Interaction Models, and they can be combined and used in the same
LLN. Which mechanism(s) to use depends on application requirements.
4.4.1. Static Scheduling
In the simplest instantiation of a 6TiSCH network, a common fixed
schedule may be shared by all nodes in the network. Cells are
shared, and nodes contend for slot access in a Slotted ALOHA manner.
A static TSCH schedule can be used to bootstrap a network, as an
initial phase during implementation or as a fall-back mechanism in
case of network malfunction. This schedule is preestablished, for
instance, decided by a network administrator based on operational
needs. It can be preconfigured into the nodes, or, more commonly,
learned by a node when joining the network using standard IEEE Std
802.15.4 Information Elements (IE). Regardless, the schedule remains
unchanged after the node has joined a network. RPL is used on the
resulting network. This "minimal" scheduling mechanism that
implements this paradigm is detailed in [RFC 8180].
4.4.2. Neighbor-to-Neighbor Scheduling
In the simplest instantiation of a 6TiSCH network described in
Section 4.4.1, nodes may expect a packet at any cell in the schedule
and will waste energy idle listening. In a more complex
instantiation of a 6TiSCH network, a matching portion of the schedule
is established between peers to reflect the observed amount of
transmissions between those nodes. The aggregation of the cells
between a node and a peer forms a bundle that the 6top sublayer uses
to implement the abstraction of a link for IP. The bandwidth on that
link is proportional to the number of cells in the bundle.
If the size of a bundle is configured to fit an average amount of
bandwidth, peak traffic is dropped. If the size is configured to
allow for peak emissions, energy is wasted idle listening.
As discussed in more detail in Section 4.3, the 6top Protocol
[RFC 8480] specifies the exchanges between neighbor nodes to reserve
soft cells to transmit to one another, possibly under the control of
a Scheduling Function (SF). Because this reservation is done without
global knowledge of the schedule of the other nodes in the LLN,
scheduling collisions are possible.
And as discussed in Section 4.3.2, an optional SF is used to monitor
bandwidth usage and to perform requests for dynamic allocation by the
6top sublayer. The SF component is not part of the 6top sublayer.
It may be co-located on the same device or may be partially or fully
offloaded to an external system. The "6TiSCH Minimal Scheduling
Function (MSF)" [RFC 9033] provides a simple SF that can be used by
default by devices that support dynamic scheduling of soft cells.
Monitoring and relocation is done in the 6top sublayer. For the
upper layer, the connection between two neighbor nodes appears as a
number of cells. Depending on traffic requirements, the upper layer
can request 6top to add or delete a number of cells scheduled to a
particular neighbor, without being responsible for choosing the exact
slotOffset/channelOffset of those cells.
4.4.3. Remote Monitoring and Schedule Management
Remote Monitoring and Schedule Management refers to a DetNet/SDN
model whereby an NME and a scheduling entity, associated with a PCE,
reside in a central controller and interact with the 6top sublayer to
control IPv6 links and Tracks (Section 4.5) in a 6TiSCH network. The
composite centralized controller can assign physical resources (e.g.,
buffers and hard cells) to a particular Track to optimize the
reliability within a bounded latency for a well-specified flow.
The work in the 6TiSCH Working Group focused on nondeterministic
traffic and did not provide the generic data model necessary for the
controller to monitor and manage resources of the 6top sublayer.
This is deferred to future work, see Appendix A.1.2.
With respect to centralized routing and scheduling, it is envisioned
that the related component of the 6TiSCH architecture would be an
extension of the DetNet architecture [RFC 8655], which studies Layer 3
aspects of Deterministic Networks and covers networks that span
multiple Layer 2 domains.
The DetNet architecture is a form of Software-Defined Networking
(SDN) architecture and is composed of three planes: a (User)
Application Plane, a Controller Plane (where the PCE operates), and a
Network Plane, which can represent a 6TiSCH LLN.
"Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology" [RFC 7426] proposes a generic representation of the SDN
architecture that is reproduced in Figure 9.
o--------------------------------o
| |
| +-------------+ +----------+ |
| | Application | | Service | |
| +-------------+ +----------+ |
| Application Plane |
o---------------Y----------------o
|
*-----------------------------Y---------------------------------*
| Network Services Abstraction Layer (NSAL) |
*------Y------------------------------------------------Y-------*
| |
| Service Interface |
| |
o------Y------------------o o---------------------Y------o
| | Control Plane | | Management Plane | |
| +----Y----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ +----Y----+ |
| | Service | | App | | | | App | | Service | |
| +----Y----+ +--Y--+ | | +--Y--+ +----Y----+ |
| | | | | | | |
| *----Y-----------Y----* | | *---Y---------------Y----* |
| | Control Abstraction | | | | Management Abstraction | |
| | Layer (CAL) | | | | Layer (MAL) | |
| *----------Y----------* | | *----------Y-------------* |
| | | | | |
o------------|------------o o------------|---------------o
| |
| CP | MP
| Southbound | Southbound
| Interface | Interface
| |
*------------Y---------------------------------Y----------------*
| Device and resource Abstraction Layer (DAL) |
*------------Y---------------------------------Y----------------*
| | | |
| o-------Y----------o +-----+ o--------Y----------o |
| | Forwarding Plane | | App | | Operational Plane | |
| o------------------o +-----+ o-------------------o |
| Network Device |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 9: SDN Layers and Architecture Terminology per RFC 7426
The PCE establishes end-to-end Tracks of hard cells, which are
described in more detail in Section 4.6.1.
The DetNet work is expected to enable end-to-end deterministic paths
across heterogeneous networks. This can be, for instance, a 6TiSCH
LLN and an Ethernet backbone.
This model fits the 6TiSCH extended configuration, whereby a 6BBR
federates multiple 6TiSCH LLNs in a single subnet over a backbone
that can be, for instance, Ethernet or Wi-Fi. In that model, 6TiSCH
6BBRs synchronize with one another over the backbone, so as to ensure
that the multiple LLNs that form the IPv6 subnet stay tightly
synchronized.
If the backbone is deterministic, then the Backbone Router ensures
that the end-to-end deterministic behavior is maintained between the
LLN and the backbone. It is the responsibility of the PCE to compute
a deterministic path end to end across the TSCH network and an IEEE
Std 802.1 TSN Ethernet backbone, and it is the responsibility of
DetNet to enable end-to-end deterministic forwarding.
4.4.4. Hop-by-Hop Scheduling
A node can reserve a Track (Section 4.5) to one or more
destination(s) that are multiple hops away by installing soft cells
at each intermediate node. This forms a Track of soft cells. A
Track SF above the 6top sublayer of each node on the Track is needed
to monitor these soft cells and trigger relocation when needed.
This hop-by-hop reservation mechanism is expected to be similar in
essence to [RFC 3209] and/or [RFC 4080] and [RFC 5974]. The protocol
for a node to trigger hop-by-hop scheduling is not yet defined.
4.5. On Tracks
The architecture introduces the concept of a Track, which is a
directed path from a source 6TiSCH node to one or more destination
6TiSCH node(s) across a 6TiSCH LLN.
A Track is the 6TiSCH instantiation of the concept of a deterministic
path as described in [RFC 8655]. Constrained resources such as memory
buffers are reserved for that Track in intermediate 6TiSCH nodes to
avoid loss related to limited capacity. A 6TiSCH node along a Track
not only knows which bundles of cells it should use to receive
packets from a previous hop but also knows which bundle(s) it should
use to send packets to its next hop along the Track.
4.5.1. General Behavior of Tracks
A Track is associated with Layer 2 bundles of cells with related
schedules and logical relationships that ensure that a packet that is
injected in a Track will progress in due time all the way to
destination.
Multiple cells may be scheduled in a Track for the transmission of a
single packet, in which case the normal operation of IEEE Std
802.15.4 Automatic Repeat-reQuest (ARQ) can take place; the
acknowledgment may be omitted in some cases, for instance, if there
is no scheduled cell for a possible retry.
There are several benefits for using a Track to forward a packet from
a source node to the destination node:
1. Track Forwarding, as further described in Section 4.6.1, is a
Layer 2 forwarding scheme, which introduces less process delay
and overhead than a Layer 3 forwarding scheme. Therefore, LLN
devices can save more energy and resources, which is critical for
resource-constrained devices.
2. Since channel resources, i.e., bundles of cells, have been
reserved for communications between 6TiSCH nodes of each hop on
the Track, the throughput and the maximum latency of the traffic
along a Track are guaranteed, and the jitter is minimized.
3. By knowing the scheduled timeslots of incoming bundle(s) and
outgoing bundle(s), 6TiSCH nodes on a Track could save more
energy by staying in sleep state during inactive slots.
4. Tracks are protected from interfering with one another if a cell
is scheduled to belong to at most one Track, and congestion loss
is avoided if at most one packet can be presented to the MAC to
use that cell. Tracks enhance the reliability of transmissions
and thus further improve the energy consumption in LLN devices by
reducing the chances of retransmission.
4.5.2. Serial Track
A Serial (or simple) Track is the 6TiSCH version of a circuit: a
bundle of cells that are programmed to receive (RX-cells) is uniquely
paired with a bundle of cells that are set to transmit (TX-cells),
representing a Layer 2 forwarding state that can be used regardless
of the network-layer protocol. A Serial Track is thus formed end-to-
end as a succession of paired bundles: a receive bundle from the
previous hop and a transmit bundle to the next hop along the Track.
For a given iteration of the device schedule, the effective channel
of the cell is obtained by looping through a well-known hopping
sequence beginning at Epoch time and starting at the cell's
channelOffset, which results in a rotation of the frequency that is
used for transmission. The bundles may be computed so as to
accommodate both variable rates and retransmissions, so they might
not be fully used in the iteration of the schedule.
4.5.3. Complex Track with Replication and Elimination
The art of Deterministic Networks already includes packet replication
and elimination techniques. Example standards include the Parallel
Redundancy Protocol (PRP) and the High-availability Seamless
Redundancy (HSR) [IEC62439]. Similarly, and as opposed to a Serial
Track that is a sequence of nodes and links, a Complex Track is
shaped as a directed acyclic graph towards one or more destination(s)
to support multipath forwarding and route around failures.
A Complex Track may branch off over noncongruent branches for the
purpose of multicasting and/or redundancy, in which case, it
reconverges later down the path. This enables the Packet
Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) defined by
DetNet. Packet ARQ, Replication, Elimination, and Overhearing
(PAREO) adds radio-specific capabilities of Layer 2 ARQ and
promiscuous listening to redundant transmissions to compensate for
the lossiness of the medium and meet industrial expectations of a RAW
network. Combining PAREO and PREOF, a Track may extend beyond the
6TiSCH network into a larger DetNet network.
In the art of TSCH, a path does not necessarily support PRE, but it
is almost systematically multipath. This means that a Track is
scheduled so as to ensure that each hop has at least two forwarding
solutions, and the forwarding decision is to try the preferred one
and use the other in case of Layer 2 transmission failure as detected
by ARQ. Similarly, at each 6TiSCH hop along the Track, the PCE may
schedule more than one timeslot for a packet, so as to support Layer
2 retries (ARQ). It is also possible that the field device only uses
the second branch if sending over the first branch fails.
4.5.4. DetNet End-to-End Path
Ultimately, DetNet should enable extending a Track beyond the 6TiSCH
LLN as illustrated in Figure 10. In that example, a Track is laid
out from a field device in a 6TiSCH network to an IoT gateway that is
located on an 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) backbone. A
6TiSCH-aware DetNet service layer handles the Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Ordering Functions over the DODAG that forms a
Track.
The Replication function in the 6TiSCH Node sends a copy of each
packet over two different branches, and the PCE schedules each hop of
both branches so that the two copies arrive in due time at the
gateway. In case of a loss on one branch, hopefully the other copy
of the packet still makes it in due time. If two copies make it to
the IoT gateway, the Elimination function in the gateway ignores the
extra packet and presents only one copy to upper layers.
+-=-=-+
| IoT |
| G/W |
+-=-=-+
^ <=== Elimination
Track branch | |
+-=-=-=-+ +-=-=-=-=+ Subnet backbone
| |
+-=|-=+ +-=|-=+
| | | Backbone | | | Backbone
o | | | Router | | | Router
+-=/-=+ +-=|-=+
o / o o-=-o-=-=/ o
o o-=-o-=/ o o o o o
o \ / o o LLN o
o v <=== Replication
o
Figure 10: Example End-to-End DetNet Track
4.5.5. Cell Reuse
The 6TiSCH architecture provides the means to avoid waste of cells as
well as overflows in the transmit bundle of a Track, as follows:
A TX-cell that is not needed for the current iteration may be reused
opportunistically on a per-hop basis for routed packets. When all of
the frames that were received for a given Track are effectively
transmitted, any available TX-cell for that Track can be reused for
upper-layer traffic for which the next-hop router matches the next
hop along the Track. In that case, the cell that is being used is
effectively a TX-cell from the Track, but the short address for the
destination is that of the next-hop router.
It results in a frame that is received in an RX-cell of a Track with
a destination MAC address set to this node, as opposed to the
broadcast MAC address that must be extracted from the Track and
delivered to the upper layer. Note that a frame with an unrecognized
destination MAC address is dropped at the lower MAC layer and thus is
not received at the 6top sublayer.
On the other hand, it might happen that there are not enough TX-cells
in the transmit bundle to accommodate the Track traffic, for
instance, if more retransmissions are needed than provisioned. In
that case, and if the frame transports an IPv6 packet, then it can be
placed for transmission in the bundle that is used for Layer 3
traffic towards the next hop along the Track. The MAC address should
be set to the next-hop MAC address to avoid confusion.
It results in a frame that is received over a Layer 3 bundle that may
be in fact associated with a Track. In a classical IP link such as
an Ethernet, off-Track traffic is typically in excess over
reservation to be routed along the non-reserved path based on its QoS
setting. But with 6TiSCH, since the use of the Layer 3 bundle may be
due to transmission failures, it makes sense for the receiver to
recognize a frame that should be re-Tracked and to place it back on
the appropriate bundle if possible. A frame is re-Tracked by
scheduling it for transmission over the transmit bundle associated
with the Track, with the destination MAC address set to broadcast.
4.6. Forwarding Models
By forwarding, this document means the per-packet operation that
allows delivery of a packet to a next hop or an upper layer in this
node. Forwarding is based on preexisting state that was installed as
a result of a routing computation, see Section 4.7. 6TiSCH supports
three different forwarding models: (GMPLS) Track Forwarding,
(classical) IPv6 Forwarding, and (6LoWPAN) Fragment Forwarding.
4.6.1. Track Forwarding
Forwarding along a Track can be seen as a Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) operation in that the information used to
switch a frame is not an explicit label but is rather related to
other properties of the way the packet was received, a particular
cell in the case of 6TiSCH. As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC
(and Layer 2 security) accepts a frame, that frame can be switched
regardless of the protocol, whether this is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN
fragment, or a frame from an alternate protocol such as WirelessHART
or ISA100.11a.
A data frame that is forwarded along a Track normally has a
destination MAC address that is set to broadcast or a multicast
address depending on MAC support. This way, the MAC layer in the
intermediate nodes accepts the incoming frame and 6top switches it
without incurring a change in the MAC header. In the case of IEEE
Std 802.15.4, this means effectively to broadcast, so that along the
Track the short address for the destination of the frame is set to
0xFFFF.
There are two modes for a Track: an IPv6 native mode and a protocol-
independent tunnel mode.
4.6.1.1. Native Mode
In native mode, the Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is associated with flow-
dependent metadata that refers uniquely to the Track, so the 6top
sublayer can place the frame in the appropriate cell without
ambiguity. In the case of IPv6 traffic, this flow may be identified
using a 6-tuple as discussed in [RFC 8939]. In particular,
implementations of this document should support identification of
DetNet flows based on the IPv6 Flow Label field.
The flow follows a Track that is identified using a RPL Instance (see
Section 3.1.3 of [RFC 6550]), signaled in a RPL Packet Information
(more in Section 11.2.2.1 of [RFC 6550]) and the source address of a
packet going down the DODAG formed by a local instance. One or more
flows may be placed in a same Track and the Track identification
(TrackID plus owner) may be placed in an IP-in-IP encapsulation. The
forwarding operation is based on the Track and does not depend on the
flow therein.
The Track identification is validated at egress before restoring the
destination MAC address (DMAC) and punting to the upper layer.
Figure 11 illustrates the Track Forwarding operation that happens at
the 6top sublayer, below IP.
| Packet flowing across the network ^
+--------------+ | |
| IPv6 | | |
+--------------+ | |
| 6LoWPAN HC | | |
+--------------+ ingress egress
| 6top | sets +----+ +----+ restores
+--------------+ DMAC to | | | | DMAC to
| TSCH MAC | brdcst | | | | dest
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| LLN PHY | +-------+ +--...-----+ +-------+
+--------------+
Ingress Relay Relay Egress
Stack Layer Node Node Node Node
Figure 11: Track Forwarding, Native Mode
4.6.1.2. Tunnel Mode
In tunnel mode, the frames originate from an arbitrary protocol over
a compatible MAC that may or may not be synchronized with the 6TiSCH
network. An example of this would be a router with a dual radio that
is capable of receiving and sending WirelessHART or ISA100.11a frames
with the second radio by presenting itself as an access point or a
Backbone Router, respectively. In that mode, some entity (e.g., PCE)
can coordinate with a WirelessHART Network Manager or an ISA100.11a
System Manager to specify the flows that are transported.
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN HC |
+--------------+ set restore
| 6top | +DMAC+ +DMAC+
+--------------+ to|brdcst to|nexthop
| TSCH MAC | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | |
| LLN PHY | +-------+ +--...-----+ +-------+
+--------------+ | ingress egress |
| |
+--------------+ | |
| LLN PHY | | |
+--------------+ | Packet flowing across the network |
| TSCH MAC | | |
+--------------+ | DMAC = | DMAC =
|ISA100/WiHART | | nexthop v nexthop
+--------------+
Source Ingress Egress Destination
Stack Layer Node Node Node Node
Figure 12: Track Forwarding, Tunnel Mode
In that case, the TrackID that identifies the Track at the ingress
6TiSCH router is derived from the RX-cell. The DMAC is set to this
node, but the TrackID indicates that the frame must be tunneled over
a particular Track, so the frame is not passed to the upper layer.
Instead, the DMAC is forced to broadcast, and the frame is passed to
the 6top sublayer for switching.
At the egress 6TiSCH router, the reverse operation occurs. Based on
tunneling information of the Track, which may for instance indicate
that the tunneled datagram is an IP packet, the datagram is passed to
the appropriate link-layer with the destination MAC restored.
4.6.1.3. Tunneling Information
Tunneling information coming with the Track configuration provides
the destination MAC address of the egress endpoint as well as the
tunnel mode and specific data depending on the mode, for instance, a
service access point for frame delivery at egress.
If the tunnel egress point does not have a MAC address that matches
the configuration, the Track installation fails.
If the Layer 3 destination address belongs to the tunnel termination,
then it is possible that the IPv6 address of the destination is
compressed at the 6LoWPAN sublayer based on the MAC address.
Restoring the wrong MAC address at the egress would then also result
in the wrong IP address in the packet after decompression. For that
reason, a packet can be injected in a Track only if the destination
MAC address is effectively that of the tunnel egress point. It is
thus mandatory for the ingress router to validate that the MAC
address used at the 6LoWPAN sublayer for compression matches that of
the tunnel egress point before it overwrites it to broadcast. The
6top sublayer at the tunnel egress point reverts that operation to
the MAC address obtained from the tunnel information.
4.6.2. IPv6 Forwarding
As the packets are routed at Layer 3, traditional QoS and Active
Queue Management (AQM) operations are expected to prioritize flows.
| Packet flowing across the network ^
+--------------+ | |
| IPv6 | | +-QoS+ +-QoS+ |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| 6LoWPAN HC | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| 6top | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| TSCH MAC | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| LLN PHY | +-------+ +--...-----+ +-------+
+--------------+
Source Ingress Egress Destination
Stack Layer Node Router Router Node
Figure 13: IP Forwarding
4.6.3. Fragment Forwarding
Considering that, per Section 4 of [RFC 4944], 6LoWPAN packets can be
as large as 1280 bytes (the IPv6 minimum MTU) and that the non-
storing mode of RPL implies source routing, which requires space for
routing headers, and that an IEEE Std 802.15.4 frame with security
may carry in the order of 80 bytes of effective payload, an IPv6
packet might be fragmented into more than 16 fragments at the 6LoWPAN
sublayer.
This level of fragmentation is much higher than that traditionally
experienced over the Internet with IPv4 fragments, where
fragmentation is already known as harmful.
In the case of a multihop route within a 6TiSCH network, hop-by-hop
recomposition occurs at each hop to reform the packet and route it.
This creates additional latency and forces intermediate nodes to
store a portion of a packet for an undetermined time, thus impacting
critical resources such as memory and battery.
[RFC 8930] describes a framework for forwarding fragments end-to-end
across a 6TiSCH route-over mesh. Within that framework,
[VIRTUAL-REASSEMBLY] details a virtual reassembly buffer mechanism
whereby the datagram tag in the 6LoWPAN fragment is used as a label
for switching at the 6LoWPAN sublayer.
Building on this technique, [RFC 8931] introduces a new format for
6LoWPAN fragments that enables the selective recovery of individual
fragments and allows for a degree of flow control based on an
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN).
| Packet flowing across the network ^
+--------------+ | |
| IPv6 | | +----+ +----+ |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| 6LoWPAN HC | | learn learn |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| 6top | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| TSCH MAC | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| LLN PHY | +-------+ +--...-----+ +-------+
+--------------+
Source Ingress Egress Destination
Stack Layer Node Router Router Node
Figure 14: Forwarding First Fragment
In that model, the first fragment is routed based on the IPv6 header
that is present in that fragment. The 6LoWPAN sublayer learns the
next-hop selection, generates a new datagram tag for transmission to
the next hop, and stores that information indexed by the incoming MAC
address and datagram tag. The next fragments are then switched based
on that stored state.
| Packet flowing across the network ^
+--------------+ | |
| IPv6 | | |
+--------------+ | |
| 6LoWPAN HC | | replay replay |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| 6top | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| TSCH MAC | | | | | | |
+--------------+ | | | | | |
| LLN PHY | +-------+ +--...-----+ +-------+
+--------------+
Source Ingress Egress Destination
Stack Layer Node Router Router Node
Figure 15: Forwarding Next Fragment
A bitmap and an ECN echo in the end-to-end acknowledgment enable the
source to resend the missing fragments selectively. The first
fragment may be resent to carve a new path in case of a path failure.
The ECN echo set indicates that the number of outstanding fragments
should be reduced.
4.7. Advanced 6TiSCH Routing
4.7.1. Packet Marking and Handling
All packets inside a 6TiSCH domain must carry the RPLInstanceID that
identifies the 6TiSCH topology (e.g., a Track) that is to be used for
routing and forwarding that packet. The location of that information
must be the same for all packets forwarded inside the domain.
For packets that are routed by a PCE along a Track, the tuple formed
by 1) (typically) the IPv6 source or (possibly) destination address
in the IPv6 header and 2) a local RPLInstanceID in the RPI that
serves as TrackID, identify uniquely the Track and associated
transmit bundle.
For packets that are routed by RPL, that information is the
RPLInstanceID that is carried in the RPL Packet Information (RPI), as
discussed in Section 11.2 of [RFC 6550], "Loop Avoidance and
Detection". The RPI is transported by a RPL Option in the IPv6 Hop-
By-Hop Options header [RFC 6553].
A compression mechanism for the RPL packet artifacts that integrates
the compression of IP-in-IP encapsulation and the Routing Header type
3 [RFC 6554] with that of the RPI in a 6LoWPAN dispatch/header type is
specified in [RFC 8025] and [RFC 8138].
Either way, the method and format used for encoding the RPLInstanceID
is generalized to all 6TiSCH topological Instances, which include
both RPL Instances and Tracks.
4.7.2. Replication, Retries, and Elimination
6TiSCH supports the PREOF operations of elimination and reordering of
packets along a complex Track, but has no requirement about tagging a
sequence number in the packet for that purpose. With 6TiSCH, the
schedule can tell when multiple receive timeslots correspond to
copies of a same packet, in which case the receiver may avoid
listening to the extra copies once it has received one instance of
the packet.
The semantics of the configuration enable correlated timeslots to be
grouped for transmit (and receive, respectively) with 'OR' relations,
and then an 'AND' relation can be configurable between groups. The
semantics are such that if the transmit (and receive, respectively)
operation succeeded in one timeslot in an 'OR' group, then all the
other timeslots in the group are ignored. Now, if there are at least
two groups, the 'AND' relation between the groups indicates that one
operation must succeed in each of the groups.
On the transmit side, timeslots provisioned for retries along a same
branch of a Track are placed in the same 'OR' group. The 'OR'
relation indicates that if a transmission is acknowledged, then
retransmissions of that packet should not be attempted for the
remaining timeslots in that group. There are as many 'OR' groups as
there are branches of the Track departing from this node. Different
'OR' groups are programmed for the purpose of replication, each group
corresponding to one branch of the Track. The 'AND' relation between
the groups indicates that transmission over any of branches must be
attempted regardless of whether a transmission succeeded in another
branch. It is also possible to place cells to different next-hop
routers in the same 'OR' group. This allows routing along multipath
Tracks, trying one next hop and then another only if sending to the
first fails.
On the receive side, all timeslots are programmed in the same 'OR'
group. Retries of the same copy as well as converging branches for
elimination are converged, meaning that the first successful
reception is enough and that all the other timeslots can be ignored.
An 'AND' group denotes different packets that must all be received
and transmitted over the associated transmit groups within their
respected 'AND' or 'OR' rules.
As an example, say that we have a simple network as represented in
Figure 16, and we want to enable PREOF between an ingress node I and
an egress node E.
+-+ +-+
-- |A| ------ |C| --
/ +-+ +-+ \
/ \
+-+ +-+
|I| |E|
+-+ +-+
\ /
\ +-+ +-+ /
-- |B| ------- |D| --
+-+ +-+
Figure 16: Scheduling PREOF on a Simple Network
The assumption for this particular problem is that a 6TiSCH node has
a single radio, so it cannot perform two receive and/or transmit
operations at the same time, even on two different channels.
Say we have six possible channels, and at least ten timeslots per
slotframe. Figure 17 shows a possible schedule whereby each
transmission is retried two or three times, and redundant copies are
forwarded in parallel via A and C on the one hand, and B and D on the
other, providing time diversity, spatial diversity though different
physical paths, and frequency diversity.
slotOffset 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset 0 | | | | | | |B->D| | | ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset 1 | |I->A| |A->C|B->D| | | | | ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset 2 |I->A| | |I->B| |C->E| |D->E| | ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset 3 | | | | |A->C| | | | | ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset 4 | | |I->B| | |B->D| | |D->E| ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset 5 | | |A->C| | | |C->E| | | ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Figure 17: Example Global Schedule
This translates into a different slotframe that provides the waking
and sleeping times for every node, and the channelOffset to be used
when awake. Figure 18 shows the corresponding slotframe for node A.
slotOffset 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
operation |rcv |rcv |xmit|xmit|xmit|none|none|none|none| ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
channelOffset | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 |N/A |N/A |N/A |N/A | ...
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Figure 18: Example Slotframe for Node A
The logical relationship between the timeslots is given by Table 2:
+======+====================+=======================+
| Node | rcv slotOffset | xmit slotOffset |
+======+====================+=======================+
| I | N/A | (0 OR 1) AND (2 OR 3) |
+------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| A | (0 OR 1) | (2 OR 3 OR 4) |
+------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| B | (2 OR 3) | (4 OR 5 OR 6) |
+------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| C | (2 OR 3 OR 4) | (5 OR 6) |
+------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| D | (4 OR 5 OR 6) | (7 OR 8) |
+------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| E | (5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8) | N/A |
+------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Table 2
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
The "Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH" [RFC 9031] was optimized
for Low-Power and TSCH operations. The reader is encouraged to
review the Security Considerations section of that document
(Section 9), which discusses 6TiSCH security issues in more details.
6.1. Availability of Remote Services
The operation of 6TiSCH Tracks inherits its high-level operation from
DetNet and is subject to the observations in Section 5 of [RFC 8655].
The installation and the maintenance of the 6TiSCH Tracks depend on
the availability of a controller with a PCE to compute and push them
in the network. When that connectivity is lost, existing Tracks may
continue to operate until the end of their lifetime, but cannot be
removed or updated, and new Tracks cannot be installed.
In an LLN, the communication with a remote PCE may be slow and
unreactive to rapid changes in the condition of the wireless
communication. An attacker may introduce extra delay by selectively
jamming some packets or some flows. The expectation is that the
6TiSCH Tracks enable enough redundancy to maintain the critical
traffic in operation while new routes are calculated and programmed
into the network.
As with DetNet in general, the communication with the PCE must be
secured and should be protected against DoS attacks, including delay
injection and blackholing attacks, and secured as discussed in the
security considerations defined for Abstraction and Control of
Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) in Section 9 of [RFC 8453], which
applies equally to DetNet and 6TiSCH. In a similar manner, the
communication with the JRC must be secured and should be protected
against DoS attacks when possible.
6.2. Selective Jamming
The hopping sequence of a TSCH network is well known, meaning that if
a rogue manages to identify a cell of a particular flow, then it may
selectively jam that cell without impacting any other traffic. This
attack can be performed at the PHY layer without any knowledge of the
Layer 2 keys, and it is very hard to detect and diagnose because only
one flow is impacted.
[ROBUST-SCHEDULING] proposes a method to obfuscate the hopping
sequence and make it harder to perpetrate that particular attack.
6.3. MAC-Layer Security
This architecture operates on IEEE Std 802.15.4 and expects the link-
layer security to be enabled at all times between connected devices,
except for the very first step of the device join process, where a
joining device may need some initial, unsecured exchanges so as to
obtain its initial key material. In a typical deployment, all joined
nodes use the same keys, and rekeying needs to be global.
The 6TISCH architecture relies on the join process to deny
authorization of invalid nodes and to preserve the integrity of the
network keys. A rogue that managed to access the network can perform
a large variety of attacks from DoS to injecting forged packets and
routing information. "Zero-trust" properties would be highly
desirable but are mostly not available at the time of this writing.
[RFC 8928] is a notable exception that protects the ownership of IPv6
addresses and prevents a rogue node with L2 access from stealing and
injecting traffic on behalf of a legitimate node.
6.4. Time Synchronization
Time synchronization in TSCH induces another event horizon whereby a
node will only communicate with another node if they are synchronized
within a guard time. The pledge discovers the synchronization of the
network based on the time of reception of the beacon. If an attacker
synchronizes a pledge outside of the guard time of the legitimate
nodes, then the pledge will never see a legitimate beacon and may not
discover the attack.
As discussed in [RFC 8655], measures must be taken to protect the time
synchronization, and for 6TiSCH this includes ensuring that the
Absolute Slot Number (ASN), which is the node's sense of time, is not
compromised. Once installed and as long as the node is synchronized
to the network, ASN is implicit in the transmissions.
IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE802154] specifies that in a TSCH network, the
nonce that is used for the computation of the Message Integrity Code
(MIC) to secure link-layer frames is composed of the address of the
source of the frame and of the ASN. The standard assumes that the
ASN is distributed securely by other means. The ASN is not passed
explicitly in the data frames and does not constitute a complete
anti-replay protection. As a result, upper-layer protocols must
provide a way to detect duplicates and cope with them.
If the receiver and the sender have a different sense of ASN, the MIC
will not validate and the frame will be dropped. In that sense, TSCH
induces an event horizon whereby only nodes that have a common sense
of ASN can talk to one another in an authenticated manner. With
6TiSCH, the pledge discovers a tentative ASN in beacons from nodes
that have already joined the network. But even if the beacon can be
authenticated, the ASN cannot be trusted as it could be a replay by
an attacker, announcing an ASN that represents a time in the past.
If the pledge uses an ASN that is learned from a replayed beacon for
an encrypted transmission, a nonce-reuse attack becomes possible, and
the network keys may be compromised.
6.5. Validating ASN
After obtaining the tentative ASN, a pledge that wishes to join the
6TiSCH network must use a join protocol to obtain its security keys.
The join protocol used in 6TiSCH is the Constrained Join Protocol
(CoJP). In the minimal setting defined in [RFC 9031], the
authentication requires a pre-shared key, based on which a secure
session is derived. The CoJP exchange may also be preceded by a
zero-touch handshake [ZEROTOUCH-JOIN] in order to enable pledge
joining based on certificates and/or inter-domain communication.
As detailed in Section 4.2.1, a Join Proxy (JP) helps the pledge with
the join procedure by relaying the link-scope Join Request over the
IP network to a Join Registrar/Coordinator (JRC) that can
authenticate the pledge and validate that it is attached to the
appropriate network. As a result of the CoJP exchange, the pledge is
in possession of link-layer material including keys and a short
address, and if the ASN is known to be correct, all traffic can now
be secured using CCM* [CCMstar] at the link layer.
The authentication steps must be such that they cannot be replayed by
an attacker, and they must not depend on the tentative ASN being
valid. During the authentication, the keying material that the
pledge obtains from the JRC does not provide protection against
spoofed ASN. Once the pledge has obtained the keys to use in the
network, it may still need to verify the ASN. If the nonce used in
the Layer 2 security derives from the extended (MAC-64) address, then
replaying the ASN alone cannot enable a nonce-reuse attack unless the
same node has lost its state with a previous ASN. But if the nonce
derives from the short address (e.g., assigned by the JRC), then the
JRC must ensure that it never assigns short addresses that were
already given to this or other nodes with the same keys. In other
words, the network must be rekeyed before the JRC runs out of short
addresses.
6.6. Network Keying and Rekeying
Section 4.2.1 provides an overview of the CoJP process described in
[RFC 9031] by which an LLN can be assembled in the field, having been
provisioned in a lab. [ZEROTOUCH-JOIN] is future work that precedes
and then leverages CoJP using the [CONSTRAINED-VOUCHER] constrained
profile of [RFC 8995]. This later work requires a yet-to-be
standardized Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange protocol.
CoJP results in distribution of a network-wide key that is to be used
with [IEEE802154] security. The details of use are described in
[RFC 9031], Sections 9.2 and 9.3.2.
The BRSKI mechanism may lead to the use of CoJP, in which case it
also results in distribution of a network-wide key. Alternatively
the BRSKI mechanism may be followed by use of [EST-COAPS] to enroll
certificates for each device. In that case, the certificates may be
used with an [IEEE802154] key agreement protocol. The description of
this mechanism, while conceptually straightforward, still has
significant standardization hurdles to pass.
Section 8.2 of [RFC 9031] describes a mechanism to change (rekey) the
network. There are a number of reasons to initiate a network rekey:
to remove unwanted (corrupt/malicious) nodes, to recover unused
2-byte short addresses, or due to limits in encryption algorithms.
For all of the mechanisms that distribute a network-wide key,
rekeying is also needed on a periodic basis. In more detail:
* The mechanism described in Section 8.2 of [RFC 9031] requires
advance communication between the JRC and every one of the nodes
before the key change. Given that many nodes may be sleepy, this
operation may take a significant amount of time and may consume a
significant portion of the available bandwidth. As such, network-
wide rekeys to exclude nodes that have become malicious will not
be particularly quick. If a rekey is already in progress, but the
unwanted node has not yet been updated, then it is possible to
just continue the operation. If the unwanted node has already
received the update, then the rekey operation will need to be
restarted.
* The cryptographic mechanisms used by IEEE Std 802.15.4 include the
2-byte short address in the calculation of the context. A nonce-
reuse attack may become feasible if a short address is reassigned
to another node while the same network-wide keys are in operation.
A network that gains and loses nodes on a regular basis is likely
to reach the 65536 limit of the 2-byte (16-bit) short addresses,
even if the network has only a few thousand nodes. Network
planners should consider the need to rekey the network on a
periodic basis in order to recover 2-byte addresses. The rekey
can update the short addresses for active nodes if desired, but
there is actually no need to do this as long as the key has been
changed.
* With TSCH as it stands at the time of this writing, the ASN will
wrap after 2^40 timeslot durations, meaning around 350 years with
the default values. Wrapping ASN is not expected to happen within
the lifetime of most LLNs. Yet, should the ASN wrap, the network
must be rekeyed to avoid a nonce-reuse attack.
* Many cipher algorithms have some suggested limits on how many
bytes should be encrypted with that algorithm before a new key is
used. These numbers are typically in the many to hundreds of
gigabytes of data. On very fast backbone networks, this becomes
an important concern. On LLNs with typical data rates in the
kilobits/second, this concern is significantly less. With IEEE
Std 802.15.4 as it stands at the time of this writing, the ASN
will wrap before the limits of the current L2 crypto (AES-CCM-128)
are reached, so the problem should never occur.
* In any fashion, if the LLN is expected to operate continuously for
decades, then the operators are advised to plan for the need to
rekey.
Except for urgent rekeys caused by malicious nodes, the rekey
operation described in [RFC 9031] can be done as a background task and
can be done incrementally. It is a make-before-break mechanism. The
switch over to the new key is not signaled by time, but rather by
observation that the new key is in use. As such, the update can take
as long as needed, or occur in as short a time as practical.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 768>.
[RFC 4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4861>.
[RFC 4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4862>.
[RFC 4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4944>.
[RFC 5889] Baccelli, E., Ed. and M. Townsley, Ed., "IP Addressing
Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5889,
September 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5889>.
[RFC 6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6282>.
[RFC 6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6550>.
[RFC 6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6551>.
[RFC 6552] Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)",
RFC 6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6552, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6552>.
[RFC 6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6553, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6553>.
[RFC 6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6554, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6554>.
[RFC 6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6775>.
[RFC 7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7102, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7102>.
[RFC 7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7228>.
[RFC 7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7252>.
[RFC 7554] Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7554, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7554>.
[RFC 8025] Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch",
RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8025, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8025>.
[RFC 8137] Kivinen, T. and P. Kinney, "IEEE 802.15.4 Information
Element for the IETF", RFC 8137, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8137, May
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8137>.
[RFC 8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8138>.
[RFC 8180] Vilajosana, X., Ed., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal
IPv6 over the TSCH Mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH)
Configuration", BCP 210, RFC 8180, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8180,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8180>.
[RFC 8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8200>.
[RFC 8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8453>.
[RFC 8480] Wang, Q., Ed., Vilajosana, X., and T. Watteyne, "6TiSCH
Operation Sublayer (6top) Protocol (6P)", RFC 8480,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8480, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8480>.
[RFC 8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8505>.
[RFC 8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8655>.
[RFC 8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
"Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8928, November
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8928>.
[RFC 8929] Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli,
"IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8929,
November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8929>.
[RFC 8930] Watteyne, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., and C. Bormann, "On
Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multi-Hop IPv6
Network", RFC 8930, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8930, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8930>.
[RFC 8931] Thubert, P., Ed., "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal
Area Network (6LoWPAN) Selective Fragment Recovery",
RFC 8931, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8931, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8931>.
[RFC 9008] Robles, M.I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI
Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and IPv6-
in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", RFC 9008,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9008, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9008>.
[RFC 9010] Thubert, P., Ed. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL
(Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9010, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9010>.
[RFC 9031] Vučinić, M., Ed., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M.
Richardson, "Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) for 6TiSCH",
RFC 9031, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9031, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9031>.
[RFC 9032] Dujovne, D., Ed. and M. Richardson, "Encapsulation of
6TiSCH Join and Enrollment Information Elements",
RFC 9032, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9032, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9032>.
[RFC 9033] Chang, T., Ed., Vučinić, M., Vilajosana, X., Duquennoy,
S., and D. Dujovne, "6TiSCH Minimal Scheduling Function
(MSF)", RFC 9033, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9033, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9033>.
7.2. Informative References
[AMI] U.S. Department of Energy, "Advanced Metering
Infrastructure and Customer Systems", 2006,
<https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/
AMI%20Summary%20Report_09-26-16.pdf>.
[ANIMA] IETF, "Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach
(anima)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/>.
[AODV-RPL] Anamalamudi, S., Zhang, M., Perkins, C. E., Anand, S., and
B. Liu, "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power
Networks: AODV-RPL", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10, 4 April 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10>.
[AODVv2] Perkins, C. E., Ratliff, S., Dowdell, J., Steenbrink, L.,
and V. Mercieca, "Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Version
2 (AODVv2) Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-16, 4 May 2016,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-16>.
[BITSTRINGS-6LORH]
Thubert, P., Ed., Brodard, Z., Jiang, H., and G. Texier,
"A 6loRH for BitStrings", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-6lo-bier-dispatch-06, 28 January
2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-bier-
dispatch-06>.
[CCAMP] IETF, "Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ccamp/>.
[CCMstar] Struik, R., "Formal Specification of the CCM* Mode of
Operation", September 2004, <http://www.ieee802.org/15/
pub/2004/15-04-0537-00-004b-formal-specification-ccm-star-
mode-operation.doc>.
[CONSTRAINED-VOUCHER]
Richardson, M., van der Stok, P., and P. Kampanakis,
"Constrained Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping
Protocols", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
anima-constrained-voucher-10, 21 February 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-
voucher-10>.
[DAO-PROJECTION]
Thubert, P., Jadhav, R. A., and M. Gillmore, "Root
initiated routing state in RPL", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-16, 15
January 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
roll-dao-projection-16>.
[EDHOC] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-14, 11
September 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
selander-ace-cose-ecdhe-14>.
[EST-COAPS]
van der Stok, P., Kampanakis, P., Richardson, M., and S.
Raza, "EST over secure CoAP (EST-coaps)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18, 6
January 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18>.
[HART] FieldComm Group, "HART",
<https://fieldcommgroup.org/technologies/hart>.
[IEC62439] IEC, "Industrial communication networks - High
availability automation networks - Part 3: Parallel
Redundancy Protocol (PRP) and High-availability Seamless
Redundancy (HSR)", IEC 62439-3:2016, 2016,
<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/24438>.
[IEEE802154]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", IEEE
Standard 802.15.4-2015, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7460875,
April 2016,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875>.
[IEEE802154e]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Part. 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (LR-WPANs) Amendment 1: MAC sublayer", IEEE
Standard 802.15.4e-2012, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2012.6185525,
April 2012,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6185525>.
[ISA100] ISA/ANSI, "ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation",
<https://www.isa.org/isa100/>.
[ISA100.11a]
ISA/ANSI, "Wireless Systems for Industrial Automation:
Process Control and Related Applications - ISA100.11a-
2011", IEC 62734:2014, 2011,
<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/65581>.
[ND-UNICAST-LOOKUP]
Thubert, P., Ed. and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Unicast Lookup", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-6man-unicast-lookup-00, 29 July 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-unicast-
lookup-00>.
[PCE] IETF, "Path Computation Element (pce)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>.
[RAW-ARCHITECTURE]
Thubert, P., Ed. and G. Z. Papadopoulos, "Reliable and
Available Wireless Problem Statement", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-05, 15
November 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
pthubert-raw-architecture-05>.
[RAW-USE-CASES]
Papadopoulos, G. Z., Thubert, P., Theoleyre, F., and C. J.
Bernardos, "RAW use cases", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-01, 21 February 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-01>.
[RFC 2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2474>.
[RFC 2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2545, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2545>.
[RFC 3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3209>.
[RFC 3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3444>.
[RFC 3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3963, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3963>.
[RFC 4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework",
RFC 4080, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4080, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4080>.
[RFC 4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4291>.
[RFC 4903] Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4903, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4903>.
[RFC 4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4919, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4919>.
[RFC 5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5340>.
[RFC 5974] Manner, J., Karagiannis, G., and A. McDonald, "NSIS
Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for Quality-of-Service
Signaling", RFC 5974, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5974, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5974>.
[RFC 6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6275>.
[RFC 6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6347>.
[RFC 6606] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., Gomez, C., and C. Bormann, "Problem
Statement and Requirements for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing",
RFC 6606, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6606, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6606>.
[RFC 6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6830>.
[RFC 7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7426>.
[RFC 8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8578>.
[RFC 8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8613>.
[RFC 8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8939>.
[RFC 8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8995,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8995>.
[RFC 9035] Thubert, P., Ed. and L. Zhao, "A Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination-Oriented
Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Configuration Option for
the 6LoWPAN Routing Header", RFC 9035,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9035, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9035>.
[ROBUST-SCHEDULING]
Tiloca, M., Duquennoy, S., and G. Dini, "Robust Scheduling
against Selective Jamming in 6TiSCH Networks", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-
scheduling-02, 10 June 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-tiloca-6tisch-robust-scheduling-02>.
[RPL-APPLICABILITY]
Phinney, T., Ed., Thubert, P., and R. Assimiti, "RPL
applicability in industrial networks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-rpl-industrial-
applicability-02, 21 October 2013,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-
industrial-applicability-02>.
[RPL-BIER] Thubert, P., Ed., "RPL-BIER", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-roll-bier-02, 24 July 2018,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-bier-02>.
[RPL-MOP] Jadhav, R., Ed., Thubert, P., Richardson, M., and R.
Sahoo, "RPL Capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-08, 17 March 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-
08>.
[S-ALOHA] Roberts, L. G., "ALOHA packet system with and without
slots and capture", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication
Review, DOI 10.1145/1024916.1024920, April 1975,
<https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1024920>.
[TE-PREF] Thubert, P., Ed., Eckert, T., Brodard, Z., and H. Jiang,
"BIER-TE extensions for Packet Replication and Elimination
Function (PREF) and OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-bier-replication-elimination-03, 3
March 2018, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-
bier-replication-elimination-03>.
[TEAS] IETF, "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling
(teas)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teas/>.
[VIRTUAL-REASSEMBLY]
Bormann, C. and T. Watteyne, "Virtual reassembly buffers
in 6LoWPAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly-02, 9 March 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-
virtual-reassembly-02>.
[WirelessHART]
International Electrotechnical Commission, "Industrial
networks - Wireless communication network and
communication profiles - WirelessHART(TM)",
IEC 62591:2016, March 2016,
<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/24433>.
[ZEROTOUCH-JOIN]
Richardson, M., "6tisch Zero-Touch Secure Join protocol",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6tisch-
dtsecurity-zerotouch-join-04, 8 July 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-
zerotouch-join-04>.
Appendix A. Related Work in Progress
This document has been incremented as the work progressed following
the evolution of the WG charter and the availability of dependent
work. The intent was to publish when the WG concluded on the covered
items. At the time of publishing, the following specifications are
still in progress and may affect the evolution of the stack in a
6TiSCH-aware node.
A.1. Unchartered IETF Work Items
A.1.1. 6TiSCH Zero-Touch Security
The security model and in particular the zero-touch join process
[ZEROTOUCH-JOIN] depend on the ANIMA (Autonomic Networking Integrated
Model and Approach) [ANIMA] "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructure (BRSKI)" [RFC 8995] to enable zero-touch security
provisioning; for highly constrained nodes, a minimal model based on
pre-shared keys (PSK) is also available. As currently written, it
also depends on a number of documents in progress in the CORE
(Constrained RESTful Environments) WG and on "Ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)" [EDHOC], which is being considered
for adoption by the LAKE (Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange) WG.
A.1.2. 6TiSCH Track Setup
ROLL (Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks) is now standardizing
a reactive routing protocol based on RPL [AODV-RPL]. The need of a
reactive routing protocol to establish on-demand, constraint-
optimized routes and a reservation protocol to establish Layer 3
Tracks is being discussed in 6TiSCH but not yet chartered.
At the time of this writing, there is new work planned in the IETF to
provide limited deterministic networking capabilities for wireless
networks with a focus on forwarding behaviors to react quickly and
locally to the changes as described in [RAW-ARCHITECTURE].
ROLL is also standardizing an extension to RPL to set up centrally
computed routes [DAO-PROJECTION].
The 6TiSCH architecture should thus inherit from the DetNet
architecture [RFC 8655] and thus depends on it. The PCE should be a
core component of that architecture. An extension to RPL or to TEAS
(Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling) [TEAS] will be
required to expose the 6TiSCH node capabilities and the network peers
to the PCE, possibly in combination with [RPL-MOP]. A protocol such
as a lightweight Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) or an adaptation of Common Control and Measurement Plane
(CCAMP) [CCAMP] GMPLS formats and procedures could be used in
combination to [DAO-PROJECTION] to install the Tracks, as computed by
the PCE, to the 6TiSCH nodes.
A.1.3. Using BIER in a 6TiSCH Network
ROLL is actively working on Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) as
a method to compress both the data-plane packets and the routing
tables in storing mode [RPL-BIER].
BIER could also be used in the context of the DetNet service layer.
"BIER-TE extensions for Packet Replication and Elimination Function
(PREF) and OAM" [TE-PREF] leverages BIER Traffic Engineering (TE) to
control the DetNet Replication and Elimination activities in the data
plane, and to provide traceability on links where replication and
loss happen, in a manner that is abstract to the forwarding
information.
"A 6loRH for BitStrings" [BITSTRINGS-6LORH] proposes a 6LoWPAN
compression for the BIER BitString based on 6LoWPAN Routing Header
[RFC 8138].
A.2. External (Non-IETF) Work Items
The current charter positions 6TiSCH on IEEE Std 802.15.4 only.
Though most of the design should be portable to other link types,
6TiSCH has a strong dependency on IEEE Std 802.15.4 and its
evolution. The impact of changes to TSCH on this architecture should
be minimal to nonexistent, but deeper work such as 6top and security
may be impacted. A 6TiSCH Interest Group at the IEEE maintains the
synchronization and helps foster work at the IEEE should 6TiSCH
demand it.
Work is being proposed at IEEE (802.15.12 PAR) for an LLC that would
logically include the 6top sublayer. The interaction with the 6top
sublayer and the Scheduling Functions described in this document are
yet to be defined.
ISA100 [ISA100] Common Network Management (CNM) is another external
work of interest for 6TiSCH. The group, referred to as ISA100.20,
defines a Common Network Management framework that should enable the
management of resources that are controlled by heterogeneous
protocols such as ISA100.11a [ISA100.11a], WirelessHART
[WirelessHART], and 6TiSCH. Interestingly, the establishment of
6TiSCH deterministic paths, called Tracks, are also in scope, and
ISA100.20 is working on requirements for DetNet.
Acknowledgments
Special Thanks
Special thanks to Jonathan Simon, Giuseppe Piro, Subir Das, and
Yoshihiro Ohba for their deep contributions to the initial security
work, to Yasuyuki Tanaka for his work on implementation and
simulation that tremendously helped build a robust system, to Diego
Dujovne for starting and leading the SF0 effort, and to Tengfei Chang
for evolving it in the MSF.
Special thanks also to Pat Kinney, Charlie Perkins, and Bob Heile for
their support in maintaining the connection active and the design in
line with work happening at IEEE 802.15.
Special thanks to Ted Lemon, who was the INT Area Director while this
document was initiated, for his great support and help throughout,
and to Suresh Krishnan, who took over with that kind efficiency of
his till publication.
Also special thanks to Ralph Droms, who performed the first INT Area
Directorate review, which was very deep and thorough and radically
changed the orientations of this document, and then to Eliot Lear and
Carlos Pignataro, who helped finalize this document in preparation
for the IESG reviews, and to Gorry Fairhurst, David Mandelberg, Qin
Wu, Francis Dupont, Éric Vyncke, Mirja Kühlewind, Roman Danyliw,
Benjamin Kaduk, and Andrew Malis, who contributed to the final
shaping of this document through the IESG review procedure.
And Do Not Forget
This document is the result of multiple interactions, in particular
during the 6TiSCH (bi)Weekly Interim call, relayed through the 6TiSCH
mailing list at the IETF, over the course of more than 5 years.
The authors wish to thank in arbitrary order: Alaeddine Weslati,
Chonggang Wang, Georgios Exarchakos, Zhuo Chen, Georgios
Papadopoulos, Eric Levy-Abegnoli, Alfredo Grieco, Bert Greevenbosch,
Cedric Adjih, Deji Chen, Martin Turon, Dominique Barthel, Elvis
Vogli, Geraldine Texier, Guillaume Gaillard, Herman Storey, Kazushi
Muraoka, Ken Bannister, Kuor Hsin Chang, Laurent Toutain, Maik
Seewald, Michael Behringer, Nancy Cam Winget, Nicola Accettura,
Nicolas Montavont, Oleg Hahm, Patrick Wetterwald, Paul Duffy, Peter
van der Stok, Rahul Sen, Pieter de Mil, Pouria Zand, Rouhollah
Nabati, Rafa Marin-Lopez, Raghuram Sudhaakar, Sedat Gormus, Shitanshu
Shah, Steve Simlo, Tina Tsou, Tom Phinney, Xavier Lagrange, Ines
Robles, and Samita Chakrabarti for their participation and various
contributions.
Contributors
The co-authors of this document are listed below:
Thomas Watteyne for his contributions to the whole design, in
particular on TSCH and security, and to the open source community
that he created with openWSN;
Xavier Vilajosana, who led the design of the minimal support with
RPL and contributed deeply to the 6top design and the GMPLS
operation of Track switching;
Kris Pister for creating TSCH and his continuing guidance through
the elaboration of this design;
Mališa Vučinić for the work on the one-touch join process and his
contribution to the Security Design Team;
Michael Richardson for his leadership role in the Security Design
Team and his contribution throughout this document;
Tero Kivinen for his contribution to the security work in general
and the security section in particular;
Maria Rita Palattella for managing the Terminology document that
was merged into this document through the work of 6TiSCH;
Simon Duquennoy for his contribution to the open source community
with the 6TiSCH implementation of contiki, and for his
contribution to MSF and autonomous unicast cells;
Qin Wang, who led the design of the 6top sublayer and contributed
related text that was moved and/or adapted into this document;
Rene Struik for the security section and his contribution to the
Security Design Team;
Robert Assimiti for his breakthrough work on RPL over TSCH and
initial text and guidance.
Author's Address
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 Mougins - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 165091 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Sunday, May 30th, 2021
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
