1 / 30

RPL (pronounced ripple) Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks Interim Meeting

RPL (pronounced ripple) Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks Interim Meeting . draft-ietf-roll-rpl-02.txt Tim Winter & Pascal Thubert, editors. RPL Status. WG draft draft - ietf -roll- rpl -02 DT was dissolved. Thanks DT! Added a number of feature Too many? Too complex?

idalee
Télécharger la présentation

RPL (pronounced ripple) Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks Interim Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. RPL (pronounced ripple)Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy NetworksInterim Meeting draft-ietf-roll-rpl-02.txt Tim Winter & Pascal Thubert, editors IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  2. RPL Status • WG draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-02 • DT was dissolved. Thanks DT! • Added a number of feature • Too many? Too complex? • Requires • Re-organisation to avoid dups. • FSM details, description from a node standpoint • Hotest issues • Loop avoidance and detection – tradeoff & mechanisms • P2P routes, DAO fan out, DIO prefixes • MultiDAG, topologies and DV between DAGs IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  3. Implementer feedback • Dev has started • 4 candidates, • multiple environments • Traces available • Thanks Thomas and Phil  • But complain that • Spec too big • Protocol too complex Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  4. Draft update What did we add recently? IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  5. OCP0 • OCP 0 is fully spelled out • DAG towards the nearest exit • Uses abstract rank metric • Based on the decimal rank • Add OCP1 for floating? • Other OCPs => in the metrics draft Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  6. Multicast DAO • NA DOA can now be sent to all nodes • Allows P2P line of sight • Between nodes (not necessarily routers) • MUST NOT be used to redistribute info • Only about stuff owned by this node • Q: redistrib in the unicast NA-DAO? • Not done at the moment • Doable but probable additional complexity Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  7. Discussions on the list What do we want to achieve IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  8. Terminology • Need terms for next hops • selectable parents • Non selectable parents • Siblings Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  9. Floating DAG • What are they for ? • Can be transient for network reconf • Can be permanent as an isolated network • What about OCP? • OCP0 is not ideal for the permanent case • Needs OCP1 that builds a wider DAG for any to any • Can benefit from minimum preference setting to replace the grounded bit. Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  10. Sibling Loops • Sibling is a necessary evil • Improves FWD diversity • Parents MUST be preferred • No absolute detection • Difficult when multiple sibling hops • But that’s not necessarily so useful • Current preventive rules: • Aggressive TTL decrement, parent preference • No Reverse Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  11. Missing ~DAO Loops • Comes from DAO states not in sync • A parent has a DAO route but the child has none • Many more or less conplex ways to get there • Detected by simple RPF check. • Proposed preventive rule: A node must drop a packet from a parent if it would route it to a parent (or sibling) Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  12. Reconfiguration loops • This is when a parent jumps in its subDAG • Risk is reduced by detaching the DAG • But imperfectly, based in unreliable mcast • Detection is required • Can be fully prevented by the seq counter • Additional complexity and delay • Looking for alternate / simplification • DAG merge and split is necessary anyway • A great detection could allow more risky Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  13. Feature evolution Have we gone too far? A brief history of recent evolution IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  14. DAG vs. tree • Idea: • Accept multiple parents and siblings • Perceived Benefits • Multiple path inwards • Reality check • More complex implementation (eg sequence) • More states. Metrics aggregation. • Necessary evil for many link types Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  15. Sequence Number • Brings true loop avoidance • Allows moving down within same DAG • Complexity: • When to trigger a new sequence • What to do of parent with different sequences • How often is the sequence flooded Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  16. Rank range • Idea: • replace the simple depth incremented by 1 • with a more complex metric with decimal increment • Perceived Benefits • Better mapping with real metrics • Better resulting DAG • Reality check • Broken text and greediness rules • Unpreferable parents. Harder to get siblings • Still discuss on the range. Large enough? Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  17. Source Route • Idea: • Using source route along the DAG • Perceived Benefits • Save DAO intermediate states • Reality check • No path recovery • Risk of saturation at the root • Need new DIO field / complexity • Another necessary evil for certain node types Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  18. DAO fan out • Idea: • Send DAO to more than one parent • Perceived Benefits • Multiple path outwards • Reality check • DAG properties are asymmetrical • Fan out not solved yet • Broken for source route Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  19. MultiDAG • Idea: • Belong to multiple DAGs • Perceived Benefits • More routes, constrained routes • Reality check • More complex DIOs and flows • Eg: when does parent leave a DAG • Distance comparison between DAGS • We need to draw a line somewhere Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  20. Simplifying RPL Simpler is better When it’s REALLY simpler IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  21. Sibling loops See Dominique’s presentation Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  22. Multiple DAGs See Thomas’ Mail Simplifying RPL: (1) multiple DAGs Suggest support to mDAG Echoing Richard Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  23. Relax loop avoidance • Can we avoid separating the DAG? • Proposal on the list: • allow DAG inconsistency • Use RA-DIO + trickle to fix that quickly • But then, back to RIP and count to infinity • Also, what about a better detection? Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  24. Lowering transient loss • A node has to detach when no parent • Would allow a child to follow regardless • But Children can’t follow rank increase • So the node could actually move down • To maintain its own connectivity Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  25. Oustanding issues Things we might need to consider… Or not? IETF 75 – Roll WG – July 2009

  26. Asymmetrical links • Problem: • Best inwards path might be poor outwards • Proposed approach • Diff preferred parents inwards and outwards • Compute Rank as the worst of the 2 • Impact • Probably limited to OCP Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  27. Security ? Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  28. More P2P Can forking DAGs suffice? Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  29. Mobile nodes • Problem: • Find a DAG that reach Home • Default route via the DAG or Home? • Proposed approach • Tie the movement detection to RPL • Hold down routers that do not reach home • Impact to RPL • Probably limited to OCP Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

  30. Compression In particular for source routing Labels? Interim meeting – Roll WG – Sep. 2009

More Related