rfc9453.original | rfc9453.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
6Lo Working Group Y-G. Hong | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y-G. Hong | |||
Internet-Draft Daejeon University | Request for Comments: 9453 Daejeon University | |||
Intended status: Informational C.G. Gomez | Category: Informational C. Gomez | |||
Expires: 7 October 2023 UPC | ISSN: 2070-1721 UPC | |||
Y-H. Choi | Y-H. Choi | |||
ETRI | ETRI | |||
AR. Sangi | A. Sangi | |||
Wenzhou-Kean University | Wenzhou-Kean University | |||
S. Chakrabarti | S. Chakrabarti | |||
5 April 2023 | Verizon | |||
September 2023 | ||||
IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo) Applicability & Use cases | Applicability and Use Cases for IPv6 over Networks of Resource- | |||
draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16 | constrained Nodes (6lo) | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document describes the applicability of IPv6 over constrained | This document describes the applicability of IPv6 over constrained- | |||
node networks (6lo) and provides practical deployment examples. In | node networks (6lo) and provides practical deployment examples. In | |||
addition to IEEE Std 802.15.4, various link layer technologies such | addition to IEEE Std 802.15.4, various link-layer technologies are | |||
as ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), Bluetooth Low Energy (Bluetooth LE), | used as examples, such as ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), Bluetooth Low Energy | |||
Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications-Ultra Low Energy (DECT- | (Bluetooth LE), Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications - Ultra | |||
ULE), Master-Slave/Token Passing (MS/TP), Near Field Communication | Low Energy (DECT-ULE), Master-Slave/Token Passing (MS/TP), Near Field | |||
(NFC), and Power Line Communication (PLC) are used as examples. The | Communication (NFC), and Power Line Communication (PLC). This | |||
document targets an audience who would like to understand and | document targets an audience who would like to understand and | |||
evaluate running end-to-end IPv6 over the constrained node networks | evaluate running end-to-end IPv6 over the constrained-node networks | |||
for local or Internet connectivity. | for local or Internet connectivity. | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | published for informational purposes. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | ||||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | ||||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | ||||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | ||||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | received public review and has been approved for publication by the | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | 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. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 October 2023. | 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/rfc9453. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the | |||
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described | |||
in the Revised BSD License. | ||||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction | |||
2. 6lo Link layer technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. 6lo Link-Layer Technologies | |||
2.1. ITU-T G.9959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1. ITU-T G.9959 | |||
2.2. Bluetooth LE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2. Bluetooth LE | |||
2.3. DECT-ULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.3. DECT-ULE | |||
2.4. MS/TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.4. MS/TP | |||
2.5. NFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.5. NFC | |||
2.6. PLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.6. PLC | |||
2.7. Comparison between 6lo link layer technologies . . . . . 8 | 2.7. Comparison between 6lo Link-Layer Technologies | |||
3. Guidelines for adopting an IPv6 stack (6lo) . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3. Guidelines for Adopting an IPv6 Stack (6lo) | |||
4. 6lo Deployment Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4. 6lo Deployment Examples | |||
4.1. Wi-SUN usage of 6lo in network layer . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.1. Wi-SUN Usage of 6lo in Network Layer | |||
4.2. Thread usage of 6lo in network layer . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.2. Thread Usage of 6lo in the Network Layer | |||
4.3. G3-PLC usage of 6lo in network layer . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.3. G3-PLC Usage of 6lo in Network Layer | |||
4.4. Netricity usage of 6lo in network layer . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.4. Netricity Usage of 6lo in the Network Layer | |||
5. 6lo Use Case Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5. 6lo Use-Case Examples | |||
5.1. Use case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.1. Use Case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home | |||
5.2. Use case of Bluetooth LE: Smartphone-based Interaction . 16 | 5.2. Use Case of Bluetooth LE: Smartphone-Based Interaction | |||
5.3. Use case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.3. Use Case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home | |||
5.4. Use case of MS/TP: Building Automation Networks . . . . . 17 | 5.4. Use Case of MS/TP: Building Automation Networks | |||
5.5. Use case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer . . . . . . 18 | 5.5. Use Case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer | |||
5.6. Use case of PLC: Smart Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 5.6. Use Case of PLC: Smart Grid | |||
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 7. Security Considerations | |||
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 8. References | |||
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 8.1. Normative References | |||
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 8.2. Informative References | |||
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | Appendix A. Design Space Dimensions for 6lo Deployment | |||
Appendix A. Design Space Dimensions for 6lo Deployment . . . . . 27 | Acknowledgements | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | Authors' Addresses | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Running IPv6 on constrained node networks presents challenges, due to | Running IPv6 on constrained-node networks presents challenges due to | |||
the characteristics of these networks such as small packet size, low | the characteristics of these networks, such as small packet size, low | |||
power, low bandwidth, and large number of devices, among others | power, low bandwidth, and large number of devices, among others | |||
[RFC4919][RFC7228]. For example, many IEEE Std 802.15.4 variants | [RFC4919] [RFC7228]. For example, many IEEE Std 802.15.4 variants | |||
[IEEE802154] exhibit a frame size of 127 octets, whereas IPv6 | [IEEE-802.15.4] exhibit a frame size of 127 octets, whereas IPv6 | |||
requires its underlying layer to support an MTU of 1280 bytes. | requires its underlying layer to support an MTU of 1280 bytes. | |||
Furthermore, those IEEE Std 802.15.4 variants do not offer | Furthermore, those IEEE Std 802.15.4 variants do not offer | |||
fragmentation and reassembly functionality. (It is noted that IEEE | fragmentation and reassembly functionality. (It is noted that IEEE | |||
Std 802.15.9-2021 provides a multiplexing and fragmentation layer for | Std 802.15.9-2021 provides a multiplexing and fragmentation layer for | |||
the IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE802159].) Therefore, an appropriate | the IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE-802.15.9].) Therefore, an appropriate | |||
adaptation layer supporting fragmentation and reassembly must be | adaptation layer supporting fragmentation and reassembly must be | |||
provided below IPv6. Also, the limited IEEE Std 802.15.4 frame size | provided below IPv6. Also, the limited IEEE Std 802.15.4 frame size | |||
and low energy consumption requirements motivate the need for packet | and low energy consumption requirements motivate the need for packet | |||
header compression. The IETF IPv6 over Low-Power WPAN (6LoWPAN) | header compression. The IETF IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal | |||
working group published a suite of specifications that provide an | Area Network (6LoWPAN) Working Group published a suite of | |||
adaptation layer to support IPv6 over IEEE Std 802.15.4 comprising | specifications that provides an adaptation layer to support IPv6 over | |||
the following functionality: | IEEE Std 802.15.4 comprising the following functionalities: | |||
* Fragmentation and reassembly, address autoconfiguration, and a | * fragmentation and reassembly, address autoconfiguration, and a | |||
frame format [RFC4944], | frame format [RFC4944] | |||
* IPv6 (and UDP) header compression [RFC6282], | * IPv6 (and UDP) header compression [RFC6282] | |||
* Neighbor Discovery Optimization for 6LoWPAN [RFC6775][RFC8505]. | * Neighbor Discovery Optimization for 6LoWPAN [RFC6775] [RFC8505] | |||
As Internet of Things (IoT) services become more popular, the IETF | As Internet of Things (IoT) services become more popular, the IETF | |||
has defined adaptation layer functionality to support IPv6 over | has defined adaptation layer functionality to support IPv6 over | |||
various link layer technologies other than IEEE Std 802.15.4, such as | various link-layer technologies other than IEEE Std 802.15.4, such as | |||
Bluetooth Low Energy (Bluetooth LE), ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), Digital | Bluetooth Low Energy (Bluetooth LE), ITU-T G.9959 (Z-Wave), Digital | |||
Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications - Ultra Low Energy (DECT-ULE), | Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications - Ultra Low Energy (DECT-ULE), | |||
Master-Slave/Token Passing (MS/TP), Near Field Communication (NFC), | Master-Slave/Token Passing (MS/TP), Near Field Communication (NFC), | |||
and Power Line Communication (PLC). The 6lo adaptation layers use a | and Power Line Communication (PLC). The 6lo adaptation layers use a | |||
variation of the 6LoWPAN stack applied to each particular link layer | variation of the 6LoWPAN stack applied to each particular link-layer | |||
technology. | technology. | |||
The 6LoWPAN working group produced the document entitled "Design and | The 6LoWPAN Working Group produced the document entitled "Design and | |||
Application Spaces for 6LoWPANs" [RFC6568], which describes potential | Application Spaces for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area | |||
application scenarios and use cases for low-power wireless personal | Networks (6LoWPANs)" [RFC6568], which describes potential application | |||
area networks. The present document aims to provide guidance to an | scenarios and use cases for LoWPANs. The present document aims to | |||
audience who are new to the IPv6 over constrained node networks (6lo) | provide guidance to an audience that is new to the IPv6 over | |||
concept and want to assess its application to the constrained node | constrained-node networks (6lo) concept and want to assess its | |||
network of their interest. This 6lo applicability document describes | application to the constrained-node network of their interest. This | |||
a few sets of practical 6lo deployment scenarios and use cases | 6lo applicability document describes a few sets of practical 6lo | |||
examples. In addition, it considers various network design space | deployment scenarios and use-case examples. In addition, it | |||
dimensions such as deployment, network size, power source, | considers various network design space dimensions, such as | |||
connectivity, multi-hop communication, traffic pattern, security | Deployment, Network Size, Power Source, Connectivity, Multi-Hop | |||
level, mobility, and QoS requirements (see Appendix A). | Communication, Traffic pattern, Mobility, and QoS requirements (see | |||
Appendix A). | ||||
This document provides the applicability and use cases of 6lo, | This document provides the applicability and use cases of 6lo, | |||
considering the following aspects: | considering the following aspects: | |||
* It covers various IoT-related wired/wireless link layer | * Various IoT-related wired or wireless link-layer technologies | |||
technologies providing practical information about such | providing practical information about such technologies. | |||
technologies. | ||||
* It provides a general guideline on how the 6LoWPAN stack can be | * General guidelines on how the 6LoWPAN stack can be modified for a | |||
modified for a given L2 technology. | given L2 technology. | |||
* Various 6lo use cases and practical deployment examples are | * Various 6lo use cases and practical deployment examples. | |||
described. | ||||
2. 6lo Link layer technologies | Note that the use of "master" and "slave" have been retained in this | |||
document to align with use within the industry (e.g., [TIA-485-A] and | ||||
[BACnet]). | ||||
2. 6lo Link-Layer Technologies | ||||
2.1. ITU-T G.9959 | 2.1. ITU-T G.9959 | |||
The ITU-T G.9959 Recommendation [G.9959] targets low-power Wireless | The ITU-T G.9959 Recommendation [G.9959] targets LoWPANs and defines | |||
Personal Area Networks (WPANs), and defines physical layer and link | physical-layer and link-layer functionality. Physical layers of 9.6 | |||
layer functionality. Physical layers of 9.6 kbit/s, 40 kbit/s and | kbit/s, 40 kbit/s, and 100 kbit/s are supported. [G.9959] defines | |||
100 kbit/s are supported. G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID | how a unique 32-bit HomeID network identifier is assigned by a | |||
network identifier is assigned by a network controller and how an | network controller and how an 8-bit NodeID host identifier is | |||
8-bit NodeID host identifier is allocated to each node. NodeIDs are | allocated to each node. NodeIDs are unique within the network | |||
unique within the network identified by the HomeID. The G.9959 | identified by the HomeID. The G.9959 HomeID represents an IPv6 | |||
HomeID represents an IPv6 subnet that is identified by one or more | subnet that is identified by one or more IPv6 prefixes [RFC7428]. | |||
IPv6 prefixes [RFC7428]. ITU-T G.9959 can be used for smart home | ITU-T G.9959 can be used for smart home applications, and the | |||
applications and the transmisstion rage is 100 meters per hop. | transmission range is 100 meters per hop. | |||
2.2. Bluetooth LE | 2.2. Bluetooth LE | |||
Bluetooth LE was introduced in Bluetooth 4.0, enhanced in Bluetooth | Bluetooth LE was introduced in Bluetooth 4.0, enhanced in Bluetooth | |||
4.1, and developed further in successive versions. The data rate of | 4.1, and developed further in successive versions. The data rate of | |||
Bluetooth LE is 125 kb/s, 500 kb/s, 1 Mb/s, 2 Mb/s and max | Bluetooth LE is 125 kb/s, 500 kb/s, 1 Mb/s, 2 Mb/s; and max | |||
transmission range is around 100 meters (outdoors). The Bluetooth | transmission range is around 100 meters (outdoors). The Bluetooth | |||
SIG has also published the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP). | Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) has also published the | |||
The IPSP enables discovery of IP-enabled devices and establishment of | Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP). The IPSP enables discovery | |||
link-layer connections for transporting IPv6 packets. IPv6 over | of IP-enabled devices and establishment of link-layer connections for | |||
Bluetooth LE is dependent on both Bluetooth 4.1 and IPSP 1.0 or newer | transporting IPv6 packets. IPv6 over Bluetooth LE is dependent on | |||
[BTCorev4.1][IPSP]. | both Bluetooth 4.1 [BTCorev5.4] and IPSP 1.0 [IPSP] or newer. | |||
Many devices such as mobile phones, notebooks, tablets and other | Many devices such as mobile phones, notebooks, tablets, and other | |||
handheld computing devices which support Bluetooth 4.0 or subsequent | handheld computing devices that support Bluetooth 4.0 or subsequent | |||
versions also support the low-energy variant of Bluetooth. Bluetooth | versions also support the low-energy variant of Bluetooth. Bluetooth | |||
LE is also being included in many different types of accessories that | LE is also being included in many different types of accessories that | |||
collaborate with mobile devices. An example of a use case for a | collaborate with mobile devices. An example of a use case for a | |||
Bluetooth LE accessory is a heart rate monitor that sends data via | Bluetooth LE accessory is a heart rate monitor that sends data via | |||
the mobile phone to a server on the Internet [RFC7668]. A typical | the mobile phone to a server on the Internet [RFC7668]. A typical | |||
usage of Bluetooth LE is smartphone-based interaction with | usage of Bluetooth LE is smartphone-based interaction with | |||
constrained devices. Bluetooth LE was originally designed to enable | constrained devices. Bluetooth LE was originally designed to enable | |||
star topology networks. However, recent Bluetooth versions support | star topology networks. However, recent Bluetooth versions support | |||
the formation of extended topologies, and IPv6 support for mesh | the formation of extended topologies, and IPv6 support for mesh | |||
networks of Bluetooth LE devices has been developed [RFC9159]. | networks of Bluetooth LE devices has been developed [RFC9159]. | |||
2.3. DECT-ULE | 2.3. DECT-ULE | |||
DECT-ULE is a low-power air interface technology that is designed to | DECT-ULE is a low-power air interface technology that is designed to | |||
support both circuit-switched services, such as voice communication, | support both circuit-switched services, such as voice communication, | |||
and packet-mode data services at modest data rate | and packet-mode data services at modest data rate [TS102.939-1] | |||
[TS102.939-1][TS102.939-2]. | [TS102.939-2]. | |||
The DECT-ULE protocol stack consists of the physical layer operating | The DECT-ULE protocol stack consists of the physical layer operating | |||
at frequencies in the dedicated 1880 - 1920 MHz frequency band | at frequencies in the dedicated 1880 - 1920 MHz frequency band | |||
depending on the region and uses a symbol rate of 1.152 Mbps. Radio | depending on the region and uses a symbol rate of 1.152 Mbps. Radio | |||
bearers are allocated by use of FDMA/TDMA/TDD techniques. The | bearers are allocated by use of Frequency-Division Multiplex (FDMA), | |||
coverage distance is from 70 meters (indoors) to 600 meters | Time-Division Multiple Access (TDMA), and Time-Division Duplex (TDD) | |||
(outdoors). | techniques. The coverage distance is from 70 meters (indoors) to 600 | |||
meters (outdoors). | ||||
In its generic network topology, DECT is defined as a cellular | In its generic network topology, DECT is defined as a cellular | |||
network technology. However, the most common configuration is a star | network technology. However, the most common configuration is a star | |||
network with a single Fixed Part (FP) defining the network with a | network with a single Fixed Part (FP) defining the network with a | |||
number of Portable Parts (PP) attached. The Medium Access Control | number of Portable Parts (PPs) attached. The Medium Access Control | |||
(MAC) layer supports classical DECT as this is used for services like | (MAC) layer supports classical DECT as this is used for services like | |||
discovery, pairing, and security features. All these features have | discovery, pairing, and security features. All these features have | |||
been reused from DECT. | been reused from DECT. | |||
The DECT-ULE device can switch to the ULE mode of operation, | The DECT-ULE device can switch to the ULE mode of operation, | |||
utilizing the new ULE MAC layer features. The DECT-ULE Data Link | utilizing the new Ultra Low Energy (ULE) MAC layer features. The | |||
Control (DLC) provides multiplexing as well as segmentation and re- | DECT-ULE Data Link Control (DLC) provides multiplexing as well as | |||
assembly for larger packets from layers above. The DECT-ULE layer | segmentation and re-assembly for larger packets from layers above. | |||
also implements per-message authentication and encryption. The DLC | The DECT-ULE layer also implements per-message authentication and | |||
layer ensures packet integrity and preserves packet order, but | encryption. The DLC layer ensures packet integrity and preserves | |||
delivery is based on best effort. | packet order, but delivery is based on best effort. | |||
The current DECT-ULE MAC layer standard supports low bandwidth data | The current DECT-ULE MAC layer standard supports low bandwidth data | |||
broadcast. However, the usage of this broadcast service has not yet | broadcast. However, the usage of this broadcast service has not yet | |||
been standardized for higher layers [RFC8105]. DECT-ULE can be used | been standardized for higher layers [RFC8105]. DECT-ULE can be used | |||
for smart metering in a home. | for smart metering in a home. | |||
2.4. MS/TP | 2.4. MS/TP | |||
MS/TP is a MAC protocol for the RS-485 [TIA-485-A] physical layer and | MS/TP is a MAC protocol for the RS-485 [TIA-485-A] physical layer and | |||
is used primarily in building automation networks. | is used primarily in building automation networks. | |||
An MS/TP device is typically based on a low-cost microcontroller with | An MS/TP device is typically based on a low-cost microcontroller with | |||
limited processing power and memory. These constraints, together | limited processing power and memory. These constraints, together | |||
with low data rates and a small MAC address space, are similar to | with low data rates and a small MAC address space, are similar to | |||
those faced in 6LoWPAN networks. MS/TP differs significantly from | those faced in 6LoWPAN networks. MS/TP differs significantly from | |||
6LoWPAN in at least three respects: a) MS/TP devices are typically | 6LoWPAN in at least three respects: | |||
mains powered, b) all MS/TP devices on a segment can communicate | ||||
directly so there are no hidden node or mesh routing issues, and c) | a. MS/TP devices are typically mains powered. | |||
the latest MS/TP specification provides support for large payloads, | ||||
eliminating the need for fragmentation and reassembly below IPv6. | b. All MS/TP devices on a segment can communicate directly, so there | |||
are no hidden node issues or mesh routing issues. | ||||
c. The latest MS/TP specification provides support for large | ||||
payloads, eliminating the need for fragmentation and reassembly | ||||
below IPv6. | ||||
MS/TP is designed to enable multidrop networks over shielded twisted | MS/TP is designed to enable multidrop networks over shielded twisted | |||
pair wiring. It can support network segments up to 1000 meters in | pair wiring. It can support network segments up to 1000 meters in | |||
length at a data rate of 115.2 kbit/s or segments up to 1200 meters | length at a data rate of 115.2 kbit/s or segments up to 1200 meters | |||
in length at lower bit rates. An MS/TP interface requires only a | in length at lower bit rates. An MS/TP interface requires only a | |||
Universal Asynchronous Receiver-Transmitter (UART), an RS-485 | Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter (UART), an RS-485 | |||
[TIA-485-A] transceiver with a driver that can be disabled, and a 5 | [TIA-485-A] transceiver with a driver that can be disabled, and a 5 | |||
ms resolution timer. The MS/TP MAC is typically implemented in | ms resolution timer. The MS/TP MAC is typically implemented in | |||
software. | software. | |||
Because of its long-range (~1 km), MS/TP can be used to connect | Because of its long range (~1 km), MS/TP can be used to connect | |||
remote devices (such as district heating controllers) to the nearest | remote devices (such as district heating controllers) to the nearest | |||
building control infrastructure over a single link [RFC8163]. | building control infrastructure over a single link [RFC8163]. | |||
2.5. NFC | 2.5. NFC | |||
NFC technology enables secure interactions between electronic | NFC technology enables secure interactions between electronic | |||
devices, allowing consumers to perform contactless transactions, | devices, allowing consumers to perform contactless transactions, | |||
access digital content, and connect electronic devices with a single | access digital content, and connect electronic devices with a single | |||
touch [LLCP-1.4]. The distance between sender and receiver is 10 cm | touch [LLCP-1.4]. The distance between sender and receiver is 10 cm | |||
or less. NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless | or less. NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless | |||
technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing standards for | technologies by utilizing the key elements in existing standards for | |||
contactless card technology (ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and JIS-X 6319-4). | contactless card technology. | |||
Extending the capability of contactless card technology, NFC also | Extending the capability of contactless card technology, NFC also | |||
enables devices to share information at a distance that is less than | enables devices to share information at a distance that is less than | |||
10 cm with a maximum communication speed of 424 kbps. Users can | 10 cm with a maximum communication speed of 424 kbps. Users can | |||
share business cards, make transactions, access information from a | share business cards, make transactions, access information from a | |||
smart poster or provide credentials for access control systems with a | smart poster, or provide credentials for access control systems with | |||
simple touch. | a simple touch. | |||
NFC's bidirectional communication ability is suitable for | NFC's bidirectional communication ability is suitable for | |||
establishing connections with other technologies by the simplicity of | establishing connections with other technologies by the simplicity of | |||
touch. In addition to the easy connection and quick transactions, | touch. In addition to the easy connection and quick transactions, | |||
simple data sharing is available [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc]. NFC can be used | simple data sharing is available [RFC9428]. NFC can be used for | |||
for secure transfer services where privacy is important. | secure transfer services where privacy is important. | |||
2.6. PLC | 2.6. PLC | |||
PLC is a data transmission technique that utilizes power conductors | PLC is a data transmission technique that utilizes power conductors | |||
as medium [RFC9354]. Unlike other dedicated communication | as the medium [RFC9354]. Unlike other dedicated communication | |||
infrastructure, power conductors are widely available indoors and | infrastructure, power conductors are widely available indoors and | |||
outdoors. Moreover, wired technologies cause less interference to | outdoors. Moreover, wired technologies cause less interference to | |||
the radio medium than wireless technologies and are more reliable | the radio medium than wireless technologies and are more reliable | |||
than their wireless counterparts. | than their wireless counterparts. | |||
The table below shows some available open standards defining PLC. | The table below shows some available open standards defining PLC. | |||
+=============+=================+============+===========+==========+ | +=============+=================+============+===========+==========+ | |||
| PLC Systems | Frequency Range | Type | Data | Distance | | | PLC Systems | Frequency Range | Type | Data | Distance | | |||
| | | | Rate | | | | | | | Rate | | | |||
+=============+=================+============+===========+==========+ | +=============+=================+============+===========+==========+ | |||
| IEEE 1901 | <100MHz | Broadband | 200Mbps | 1000m | | | IEEE 1901 | < 100 MHz | Broadband | 200 | 1000 m | | |||
| | | | Mbps | | | ||||
+-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
| IEEE 1901.1 | <12MHz | PLC-IoT | 10Mbps | 2000m | | | IEEE 1901.1 | < 12 MHz | PLC-IoT | 10 | 2000 m | | |||
| | | | Mbps | | | ||||
+-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
| IEEE 1901.2 | <500kHz | Narrowband | 200kbps | 3000m | | | IEEE 1901.2 | < 500 kHz | Narrowband | 200 | 3000 m | | |||
| | | | kbps | | | ||||
+-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
| G3-PLC | <500kHz | Narrowband | 234kbps | 3000m | | | G3-PLC | < 500 kHz | Narrowband | 234 | 3000 m | | |||
| | | | kbps | | | ||||
+-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | +-------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+----------+ | |||
Table 1: Some Available Open Standards in PLC | Table 1: Some Available Open Standards in PLC | |||
IEEE Std 1901 [IEEE1901] defines a broadband variant of PLC but it is | IEEE Std 1901 [IEEE-1901] defines a broadband variant of PLC, but it | |||
only effective within short range. This standard addresses the | is only effective within short range. This standard addresses the | |||
requirements of high data rates such as Internet, HDTV, audio, | requirements of high data rates such as the Internet, HDTV, audio, | |||
gaming. | and gaming. | |||
IEEE Std 1901.1 [IEEE1901.1] defines a medium frequency band (less | IEEE Std 1901.1 [IEEE-1901.1] defines a medium frequency band (less | |||
than 12 MHz) broadband PLC technology for smart grid applications | than 12 MHz) broadband PLC technology for smart grid applications | |||
based on OFDM(Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing). By | based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). By | |||
achieving an extended communication range with medium speeds, this | achieving an extended communication range with medium speeds, this | |||
standard can be applied both in indoor and outdoor scenarios, such as | standard can be applied in both indoor and outdoor scenarios, such as | |||
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), street lighting, electric | Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), street lighting, electric | |||
vehicle charging, smart city. | vehicle charging, and a smart city. | |||
IEEE Std 1901.2 [IEEE1901.2] defines a narrowband variant of PLC with | IEEE Std 1901.2 [IEEE-1901.2] defines a narrowband variant of PLC | |||
lower data rate but significantly higher transmission range that | with a lower data rate but a significantly higher transmission range | |||
could be used in an indoor or even an outdoor environment. A typical | that could be used in an indoor or even an outdoor environment. A | |||
use case of PLC is smart grid. | typical use case of PLC is a smart grid. | |||
G3-PLC [G3-PLC] is a narrowband PLC technology that is based on the | G3-PLC [G3-PLC] is a narrowband PLC technology that is based on the | |||
ITU-T G.9903 Recommendation [G.9903]. The ITU-T G.9903 | ITU-T G.9903 Recommendation [G.9903]. The ITU-T G.9903 | |||
Recommendation contains the physical layer and data link layer | Recommendation contains the physical layer and data link-layer | |||
specification for the G3-PLC narrowband OFDM power line communication | specification for the G3-PLC narrowband OFDM power line communication | |||
transceivers, for communications via alternating current and direct | transceivers, for communications via alternating current and direct | |||
current electric power lines over frequency bands below 500 kHz. | current electric power lines over frequency bands below 500 kHz. | |||
2.7. Comparison between 6lo link layer technologies | 2.7. Comparison between 6lo Link-Layer Technologies | |||
In the above subsections, various 6lo link layer technologies are | In the above subsections, various 6lo link-layer technologies are | |||
described. The following table shows the dominant parameters of each | described. The following table shows the dominant parameters of each | |||
use case corresponding to the 6lo link layer technology. | use case corresponding to the 6lo link-layer technology. | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | +=========+========+===========+========+========+========+=========+ | |||
| | Z-Wave |Bluetooth| DECT-ULE| MS/TP | NFC | PLC | | | | Z-Wave | Bluetooth |DECT-ULE| MS/TP | NFC | PLC | | |||
| | | LE | | | | | | | | | LE | | | | | | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | +=========+========+===========+========+========+========+=========+ | |||
| | Home | Interact| Meter | Building| Secure | Smart | | | Usage | Home | Interact | Meter |Building| Secure | Smart | | |||
| Usage | Auto- | w/ Smart| Reading | Auto- | Transfer| Grid | | | | Autom. | w/ Smart |Reading | Autom. |Transfer| Grid | | |||
| | mation | Phone | | mation | | | | | | | Phone | | | | | | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
| Topology | L2-mesh | Star | Star | MS/TP | P2P | Star | | | Topology|L2-mesh | Star & | Star, | MS/TP, | P2P, |Star Tree| | |||
| & | or | & | No mesh | No mesh | L2-mesh | Tree | | | & | or | Mesh |No mesh |No mesh |L2-mesh | Mesh | | |||
| Subnet | L3-mesh | Mesh | | | | Mesh | | | Subnet |L3-mesh | | | | | | | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
| Mobility | | | | | | | | | Mobility| No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | | |||
| Requirement | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | | | Req. | | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | |Buffering| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | |||
| Buffering | | | | | | | | | Req. | | | | | | | | |||
| Requirement | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | Latency,| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | | QoS Req.| | | | | | | | |||
| Latency, | | | | | | | | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
| QoS | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | Frequent| No | No | No | Yes | No | No | | |||
| Requirement | | | | | | | | | Tx Req. | | | | | | | | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
| Frequent | | | | | | | | | RFC |RFC 7428| RFC 7668 |RFC 8105|RFC 8163|RFC 9428| RFC 9354| | |||
| Transmission | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | | | | | RFC 9159 | | | | | | |||
| Requirement | | | | | | | | +=========+--------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+---------+ | |||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | ||||
| RFC # | | RFC7668 | | | draft- | | | ||||
| or | RFC7428 | RFC9159 | RFC8105 | RFC8163 | ietf-6lo| RFC9354 | | ||||
| Draft | | | | | -nfc | | | ||||
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | ||||
Table 2: Comparison between 6lo link layer technologies | Table 2: Comparison between 6lo Link-Layer Technologies | |||
3. Guidelines for adopting an IPv6 stack (6lo) | 3. Guidelines for Adopting an IPv6 Stack (6lo) | |||
6lo aims at reusing and/or adapting existing 6LoWPAN functionality in | 6lo aims to reuse and/or adapt existing 6LoWPAN functionality in | |||
order to efficiently support IPv6 over a variety of IoT L2 | order to efficiently support IPv6 over a variety of IoT L2 | |||
technologies. The following guideline targets new candidate | technologies. The following guideline targets new candidate- | |||
constrained L2 technologies that may be considered for running a | constrained L2 technologies that may be considered for running a | |||
modified 6LoWPAN stack on top. The modification of the 6LoWPAN stack | modified 6LoWPAN stack on top. The modification of the 6LoWPAN stack | |||
should be based on the following: | should be based on the following: | |||
* Addressing Model: The addressing model determines whether the | Addressing Model: | |||
device is capable of forming IPv6 link-local and global addresses, | The addressing model determines whether the device is capable of | |||
and what is the best way to derive the IPv6 addresses for the | forming IPv6 link-local and global addresses, and what is the best | |||
constrained L2 devices. L2-address-derived IPv6 addresses are | way to derive the IPv6 addresses for the constrained L2 devices. | |||
specified in [RFC4944], but there exist implications for privacy. | IPv6 addresses that are derived from an L2 address are specified | |||
The reason is that the L2-address in 6lo link layer technologies | in [RFC4944], but there are implications for privacy. The reason | |||
is a little short and devices can become vulnerable to the various | is that the L2 address in 6lo link-layer technologies is a little | |||
threats. For global usage, a unique IPv6 address must be derived | short, and devices can become vulnerable to the various threats. | |||
using an assigned prefix and a unique interface ID. [RFC8065] | For global usage, a unique IPv6 address must be derived using an | |||
provides such guidelines. For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, please | assigned prefix and a unique interface ID. [RFC8065] provides | |||
refer to [RFC8163] for IPv6 address mapping examples. Broadcast | such guidelines. For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, refer to | |||
and multicast support are dependent on the L2 networks. Most low- | [RFC8163] for mapping examples. Broadcast and multicast support | |||
power L2 implementations map multicast to broadcast networks. So | are dependent on the L2 networks. Most low-power L2 | |||
care must be taken in the design for when to use broadcast, trying | implementations map multicast to broadcast networks. So care must | |||
to stick to unicast messaging whenever possible. | be taken in the design for when to use broadcast, trying to stick | |||
to unicast messaging whenever possible. | ||||
* MTU Considerations: The deployment should consider packet maximum | MTU Considerations: | |||
transmission unit (MTU) needs over the link layer and should | The deployment should consider packet maximum transmission unit | |||
consider if fragmentation and reassembly of packets are needed at | (MTU) needs over the link layer and should consider if | |||
the 6LoWPAN layer. For example, if the link layer supports | fragmentation and reassembly of packets are needed at the 6LoWPAN | |||
fragmentation and reassembly of packets, then the 6LoWPAN layer | layer. For example, if the link layer supports fragmentation and | |||
may not need to support fragmentation/reassembly. In fact, for | reassembly of packets, then the 6LoWPAN layer may not need to | |||
greatest efficiency, choosing a low-power link layer that can | support fragmentation and reassembly. In fact, for greatest | |||
carry unfragmented application packets would be optimal for packet | efficiency, choosing a low-power link layer that can carry | |||
unfragmented application packets would be optimal for packet | ||||
transmission if the deployment can afford it. Please refer to 6lo | transmission if the deployment can afford it. Please refer to 6lo | |||
RFCs [RFC7668], [RFC8163], and [RFC8105] for example guidance. | RFCs [RFC7668], [RFC8163], and [RFC8105] for example guidance. | |||
* Mesh or L3-Routing: 6LoWPAN specifications provide mechanisms to | Mesh or L3 Routing: | |||
support mesh routing at L2, a configuration called mesh-under | 6LoWPAN specifications provide mechanisms to support mesh routing | |||
[RFC6606]. It is also possible to use an L3 routing protocol in | at L2, a configuration called "mesh-under" [RFC6606]. It is also | |||
6LoWPAN, an approach known as route-over. [RFC6550] defines RPL, | possible to use an L3 routing protocol in 6LoWPAN, an approach | |||
a L3 routing protocol for low power and lossy networks using | known as "route-over". [RFC6550] defines RPL, an L3 routing | |||
directed acyclic graphs. 6LoWPAN is routing-protocol-agnostic and | protocol for low-power and lossy networks using directed acyclic | |||
does not specify any particular L2 or L3 routing protocol to use | graphs. 6LoWPAN is routing-protocol-agnostic and does not specify | |||
with a 6LoWPAN stack. | any particular L2 or L3 routing protocol to use with a 6LoWPAN | |||
stack. | ||||
* Address Assignment: 6LoWPAN developed a new version of IPv6 | Address Assignment: | |||
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861][RFC4862]. 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery | 6LoWPAN developed a new version of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery | |||
[RFC6775][RFC8505] inherits from IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for | [RFC4861] [RFC4862]. 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery [RFC6775] | |||
mechanisms such as Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) and | [RFC8505] inherits from IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for mechanisms | |||
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD). A 6LoWPAN node is also | such as Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) and Neighbor | |||
expected to be an IPv6 host per [RFC8200] which means it should | Unreachability Detection (NUD). A 6LoWPAN node is also expected | |||
ignore consumed routing headers and Hop-by-Hop options; when | to be an IPv6 host per [RFC8200], which means it should ignore | |||
operating in a RPL network [RFC6550], it is also beneficial to | consumed routing headers and hop-by-hop options. When operating | |||
support IP-in-IP encapsulation [RFC9008]. The 6LoWPAN node should | in an RPL network [RFC6550], it is also beneficial to support IP- | |||
also support [RFC8505] and use it as the default Neighbor | in-IP encapsulation [RFC9008]. The 6LoWPAN node should also | |||
Discovery method. It is the responsibility of the deployment to | support the registration extensions defined in [RFC8505] and use | |||
ensure unique global IPv6 addresses for Internet connectivity. | the mechanism as the default Neighbor Discovery method. It is the | |||
For local-only connectivity IPv6 Unique Local Address (ULA) may be | responsibility of the deployment to ensure unique global IPv6 | |||
used. [RFC6775][RFC8505] specifies the 6LoWPAN border router | addresses for Internet connectivity. For local-only connectivity, | |||
(6LBR), which is responsible for prefix assignment to the 6LoWPAN | IPv6 Unique Local Address (ULA) may be used. [RFC6775] and | |||
network. A 6LBR can be connected to the Internet or to an | [RFC8505] specify the 6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR), which is | |||
enterprise network via one of the interfaces. Please refer to | responsible for prefix assignment to the 6LoWPAN network. A 6LBR | |||
[RFC7668] and [RFC8105] for examples of address assignment | can be connected to the Internet or to an enterprise network via | |||
considerations. In addition, privacy considerations [RFC8065] | one of the interfaces. Please refer to [RFC7668] and [RFC8105] | |||
must be consulted for applicability. In certain scenarios, the | for examples of address assignment considerations. In addition, | |||
deployment may not support IPv6 address autoconfiguration due to | privacy considerations in [RFC8065] must be consulted for | |||
regulatory and business reasons and may choose to offer a separate | applicability. In certain scenarios, the deployment may not | |||
address assignment service. Address Protection for 6LoWPAN | support IPv6 address autoconfiguration due to regulatory and | |||
Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) [RFC8928] enables Source Address | business reasons and may choose to offer a separate address | |||
Validation [RFC6620] and protects the address ownership against | assignment service. Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery | |||
impersonation attacks. | [RFC8928] enables source address validation [RFC6620] and protects | |||
the address ownership against impersonation attacks. | ||||
* Broadcast Avoidance: 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery aims at reducing | Broadcast Avoidance: | |||
the amount of multicast traffic of classical Neighbor Discovery, | 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery aims to reduce the amount of multicast | |||
since IP-level multicast translates into L2 broadcast in many L2 | traffic of classic Neighbor Discovery, since IP-level multicast | |||
technologies [RFC6775]. 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery relies on a | translates into L2 broadcast in many L2 technologies [RFC6775]. | |||
proactive registration to avoid the use of multicast for address | 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery relies on a proactive registration to | |||
resolution. It also uses a unicast method for Duplicate Address | avoid the use of multicast for address resolution. It also uses a | |||
Detection (DAD), and avoids multicast lookups from all nodes by | unicast method for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) and avoids | |||
using non-onlink prefixes. Router Advertisements (RAs) are also | multicast lookups from all nodes by using non-onlink prefixes. | |||
sent in unicast, in response to Router Solicitations (RSs) | Router Advertisements (RAs) are also sent in unicast, in response | |||
to Router Solicitations (RSs). | ||||
* Host-to-Router interface: 6lo has defined registration extensions | Host-to-Router Interface: | |||
for 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery [RFC8505]. This effort provides a | 6lo has defined registration extensions for 6LoWPAN Neighbor | |||
host-to-router interface by which a host can request its router to | Discovery [RFC8505]. This effort provides a host-to-router | |||
ensure reachability for the address registered with the router. | interface by which a host can request its router to ensure | |||
Note that functionality has been developed to ensure that such a | reachability for the address registered with the router. Note | |||
host can benefit from routing services in a RPL network [RFC9010] | that functionality has been developed to ensure that such a host | |||
can benefit from routing services in a RPL network [RFC9010]. | ||||
* Proxy Neighbor Discovery: Further functionality also allows a | Proxy Neighbor Discovery: | |||
device (e.g., an energy-constrained device that needs to sleep | Further functionality also allows a device (e.g., an energy- | |||
most of the time) to request proxy Neighbor Discovery services | constrained device that needs to sleep most of the time) to | |||
from a 6LoWPAN Backbone Router (6BBR) [RFC8505][RFC8929]. The | request proxy Neighbor Discovery services from a 6LoWPAN Backbone | |||
latter RFC federates a number of links into a multilink subnet. | Router (6BBR) [RFC8505] [RFC8929]. The latter RFC federates a | |||
number of links into a multi-link subnet. | ||||
* Header Compression: IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] is a vital | Header Compression: | |||
part of IPv6 over low power communication. Examples of header | IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] is a vital part of IPv6 over | |||
compression over different link-layer specifications are found in | low-power communication. Examples of header compression over | |||
[RFC7668], [RFC8163], and [RFC8105]. A generic header compression | different link-layer specifications are found in [RFC7668], | |||
technique is specified in [RFC7400]. For 6LoWPAN networks where | [RFC8163], and [RFC8105]. A generic header compression technique | |||
RPL is the routing protocol, there exist 6LoWPAN header | is specified in [RFC7400]. For 6LoWPAN networks where RPL is the | |||
compression extensions which allow also compressing the RPL | routing protocol, there are 6LoWPAN header compression extensions | |||
artifacts used when forwarding packets in the route-over mesh | that allow compressing the RPL artifacts used when forwarding | |||
[RFC8138] [RFC9035]. | packets in the route-over mesh [RFC8138] [RFC9035]. | |||
* Security and Encryption: Though 6LoWPAN basic specifications do | Security and Encryption: | |||
not address security at the network layer, the assumption is that | Though 6LoWPAN basic specifications do not address security at the | |||
L2 security must be present. Nevertheless, care must be taken | network layer, the assumption is that L2 security must be present. | |||
since specific L2 technologies may exhibit security gaps. | Nevertheless, care must be taken since specific L2 technologies | |||
Typically, 6lo L2 technologies (see Section 2) offer security | may exhibit security gaps. Typically, 6lo L2 technologies (see | |||
properties such as confidentiality and/or message authentication. | Section 2) offer security properties such as confidentiality and/ | |||
In addition, end-to-end security is highly desirable. Protocols | or message authentication. In addition, end-to-end security is | |||
such as DTLS/TLS, as well as object security are being used in the | highly desirable. Protocols such as DTLS/TLS, as well as Object | |||
constrained-node network domain | Security, are being used in the constrained-node network domain | |||
[I-D.ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison]. The relevant IETF | [SEC-PROT-COMP]. The relevant IETF working groups should be | |||
working groups should be consulted for application and transport | consulted for application and transport level security. The IETF | |||
level security. The IETF has worked on address authentication | has worked on address authentication [RFC8928], and secure | |||
[RFC8928] and secure bootstrapping is also being discussed in the | bootstrapping is also being discussed in the IETF. However, there | |||
IETF. However, there may be other security mechanisms available | may be other security mechanisms available in a deployment through | |||
in a deployment through other standards such as hardware-level | other standards, such as hardware-level security or certificates | |||
security or certificates for the initial booting process. In | for the initial booting process. In order to use security | |||
order to use security mechanisms, the implementation needs to | mechanisms, the implementation needs to be able to afford it in | |||
afford it in terms of processing capabilities and energy | terms of processing capabilities and energy consumption. | |||
consumption. | ||||
* Additional processing: [RFC8066] defines guidelines for ESC | Additional Processing: | |||
dispatch octets use in the 6LoWPAN header. The ESC type is | [RFC8066] defines guidelines for ESC dispatch octets used in the | |||
defined to use additional dispatch octets in the 6LoWPAN header. | 6LoWPAN header. The ESC type is defined to use additional | |||
An implementation may take advantage of the ESC header to offer a | dispatch octets in the 6LoWPAN header. An implementation may take | |||
deployment specific processing of 6LoWPAN packets. | advantage of the ESC header to offer a deployment-specific | |||
processing of 6LoWPAN packets. | ||||
4. 6lo Deployment Examples | 4. 6lo Deployment Examples | |||
4.1. Wi-SUN usage of 6lo in network layer | 4.1. Wi-SUN Usage of 6lo in Network Layer | |||
Wireless Smart Ubiquitous Network (Wi-SUN) [Wi-SUN] is a technology | Wireless Smart Ubiquitous Network (Wi-SUN) [Wi-SUN] is a technology | |||
based on IEEE Std 802.15.4g. Wi-SUN networks support star and mesh | based on IEEE Std 802.15.4g [IEEE-802.15.4]. Wi-SUN networks support | |||
topologies, as well as hybrid star/mesh deployments, but these are | star and mesh topologies as well as hybrid star/mesh deployments, but | |||
typically laid out in a mesh topology where each node relays data for | these are typically laid out in a mesh topology where each node | |||
the network to provide network connectivity. Wi-SUN networks are | relays data for the network to provide network connectivity. Wi-SUN | |||
deployed on both grid-powered and battery-operated devices [RFC8376]. | networks are deployed on both grid-powered and battery-operated | |||
devices [RFC8376]. | ||||
The main application domains using Wi-SUN are smart utility and smart | The main application domains using Wi-SUN are smart utility and smart | |||
city networks. The Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) covers | city networks. The Wi-SUN Alliance Field Area Network (FAN) | |||
primarily outdoor networks. The Wi-SUN Field Area Network | primarily covers outdoor networks. The Wi-SUN FAN specification | |||
specification defines an IPv6-based protocol suite including TCP/UDP, | defines an IPv6-based protocol suite that includes TCP/UDP, IPv6, 6lo | |||
IPv6, 6lo adaptation layer, DHCPv6 for IPv6 address management, RPL, | adaptation layer, DHCPv6 for IPv6 address management, RPL, and | |||
and ICMPv6. | ICMPv6. | |||
4.2. Thread usage of 6lo in network layer | 4.2. Thread Usage of 6lo in the Network Layer | |||
Thread is an IPv6-based networking protocol stack built on open | Thread is an IPv6-based networking protocol stack built on open | |||
standards, designed for smart home environments, and based on low- | standards, designed for smart home environments, and based on low- | |||
power IEEE Std 802.15.4 mesh networks. Because of its IPv6 | power IEEE Std 802.15.4 mesh networks. Because of its IPv6 | |||
foundation, Thread can support existing popular application layers | foundation, Thread can support existing popular application layers | |||
and IoT platforms, provide end-to-end security, ease development and | and IoT platforms, provide end-to-end security, ease development, and | |||
enable flexible designs [Thread]. | enable flexible designs [Thread]. | |||
The Thread specification uses the IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE802154] | The Thread specification uses the IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE-802.15.4] | |||
physical and MAC layers operating at 250 kbps in the 2.4 GHz band. | physical and MAC layers operating at 250 kbps in the 2.4 GHz band. | |||
Thread devices use 6LoWPAN, as defined in [RFC4944][RFC6282], for | Thread devices use 6LoWPAN, as defined in [RFC4944] and [RFC6282], | |||
transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE Std 802.15.4 networks. Header | for transmission of IPv6 packets over IEEE Std 802.15.4 networks. | |||
compression is used within the Thread network and devices | Header compression is used within the Thread network, and devices | |||
transmitting messages compress the IPv6 header to minimize the size | transmitting messages compress the IPv6 header to minimize the size | |||
of the transmitted packet. The mesh header is supported for link- | of the transmitted packet. The mesh header is supported for link- | |||
layer (i.e., mesh under) forwarding. The mesh header as used in | layer (i.e., mesh-under) forwarding. The mesh header as used in | |||
Thread also allows efficient end-to-end fragmentation of messages | Thread also allows efficient end-to-end fragmentation of messages | |||
rather than the hop-by-hop fragmentation specified in [RFC4944]. | rather than the hop-by-hop fragmentation specified in [RFC4944]. | |||
Mesh under routing in Thread is based on a distance vector protocol | Mesh-under routing in Thread is based on a distance vector protocol | |||
in a full mesh topology. | in a full mesh topology. | |||
4.3. G3-PLC usage of 6lo in network layer | 4.3. G3-PLC Usage of 6lo in Network Layer | |||
G3-PLC [G3-PLC] is a narrowband PLC technology that is based on the | G3-PLC [G3-PLC] is a narrowband PLC technology that is based on the | |||
ITU-T G.9903 Recommendation [G.9903]. G3-PLC supports multi-hop mesh | ITU-T G.9903 Recommendation [G.9903]. G3-PLC supports multi-hop mesh | |||
network topology, and facilitates highly reliable, long-range | network topology and facilitates highly reliable, long-range | |||
communication. With the abilities to support IPv6 and to cross | communication. With the abilities to support IPv6 and to cross | |||
transformers, G3-PLC is regarded as one of the next-generation | transformers, G3-PLC is regarded as one of the next-generation | |||
narrowband PLC technologies. G3-PLC has got massive deployments over | narrowband PLC technologies. G3-PLC has got massive deployments over | |||
several countries, e.g., Japan and France. | several countries, e.g., Japan and France. | |||
The main application domains using G3-PLC are smart grid and smart | The main application domains using G3-PLC are smart grid and smart | |||
cities. This includes, but is not limited to the following | cities. This includes, but is not limited to, the following | |||
applications: | applications: | |||
* Smart metering | * smart metering | |||
* Vehicle-to-grid communication | * vehicle-to-grid communication | |||
* Demand response | * demand response | |||
* Distribution automation | * distribution automation | |||
* Home/Building energy management systems | * home/building energy management systems | |||
* smart street lighting | ||||
* Smart street lighting | ||||
* AMI backbone network | * AMI backbone network | |||
* Wind/Solar farm monitoring | * wind/solar farm monitoring | |||
In the G3-PLC specification, the 6lo adaption layer utilizes the | In the G3-PLC specification, the 6lo adaption layer utilizes the | |||
6LoWPAN functions (e.g., header compression, fragmentation and | 6LoWPAN functions (e.g., header compression, fragmentation, and | |||
reassembly). However, due to the different characteristics of the | reassembly). However, due to the different characteristics of the | |||
PLC media, the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer cannot perfectly fulfill the | PLC media, the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer cannot perfectly fulfill the | |||
requirements [RFC9354]. The ESC dispatch type is used in the G3-PLC | requirements [RFC9354]. The ESC dispatch type is used in the G3-PLC | |||
to provide fundamental mesh routing and bootstrapping functionalities | to provide fundamental mesh routing and bootstrapping functionalities | |||
[RFC8066]. | [RFC8066]. | |||
4.4. Netricity usage of 6lo in network layer | 4.4. Netricity Usage of 6lo in the Network Layer | |||
The Netricity program in the HomePlug Powerline Alliance [NETRICITY] | The Netricity program in the HomePlug Powerline Alliance [NETRICITY] | |||
promotes the adoption of products built on the IEEE Std 1901.2 low- | promotes the adoption of products built on the IEEE Std 1901.2 low- | |||
frequency narrowband PLC standard, which provides for urban and long- | frequency narrowband PLC standard [IEEE-1901.2], which provides for | |||
distance communications and propagation through transformers of the | urban and long-distance communications and propagation through | |||
distribution network using frequencies below 500 kHz. The technology | transformers of the distribution network using frequencies below 500 | |||
also addresses requirements that assure communication privacy and | kHz. The technology also addresses requirements that assure | |||
secure networks. | communication privacy and secure networks. | |||
The main application domains using Netricity are smart grid and smart | The main application domains using Netricity are smart grid and smart | |||
cities. This includes, but is not limited to the following | cities. This includes, but is not limited to, the following | |||
applications: | applications: | |||
* Utility grid modernization | * utility grid modernization | |||
* Distribution automation | * distribution automation | |||
* Meter-to-Grid connectivity | * meter-to-grid connectivity | |||
* Micro-grids | * microgrids | |||
* Grid sensor communications | * grid sensor communications | |||
* Load control | * load control | |||
* Demand response | * demand response | |||
* Net metering | * net metering | |||
* Street lighting control | * street lighting control | |||
* photovoltaic panel monitoring | ||||
* Photovoltaic panel monitoring | ||||
The Netricity system architecture is based on the physical and MAC | The Netricity system architecture is based on the physical and MAC | |||
layers of IEEE Std 1901.2. Regarding the 6lo adaptation layer and an | layers of IEEE Std 1901.2. Regarding the 6lo adaptation layer and an | |||
IPv6 network layer, Netricity utilizes IPv6 protocol suite including | IPv6 network layer, Netricity utilizes IPv6 protocol suite including | |||
6lo/6LoWPAN header compression, DHCPv6 for IP address management, RPL | 6lo/6LoWPAN header compression, DHCPv6 for IP address management, RPL | |||
routing protocol, ICMPv6, and unicast/multicast forwarding. Note | routing protocol, ICMPv6, and unicast/multicast forwarding. Note | |||
that the L3 routing in Netricity uses RPL in non-storing mode with | that the L3 routing in Netricity uses RPL in non-storing mode with | |||
the MRHOF (Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function) objective | the MRHOF (Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function) based on | |||
function based on their own defined Estimated Transmission Time (ETT) | their own defined Estimated Transmission Time (ETT) metric. | |||
metric. | ||||
5. 6lo Use Case Examples | 5. 6lo Use-Case Examples | |||
As IPv6 stacks for constrained node networks use a variation of the | As IPv6 stacks for constrained-node networks use a variation of the | |||
6LoWPAN stack applied to each particular link layer technology, | 6LoWPAN stack applied to each particular link-layer technology, | |||
various 6lo use cases can be provided. In this section, various 6lo | various 6lo use cases can be provided. In this section, various 6lo | |||
use cases which are based on different link layer technologies are | use cases, which are based on different link-layer technologies, are | |||
described. | described. | |||
5.1. Use case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home | 5.1. Use Case of ITU-T G.9959: Smart Home | |||
Z-Wave is one of the main technologies that may be used to enable | Z-Wave is one of the main technologies that may be used to enable | |||
smart home applications. Born as a proprietary technology, Z-Wave | smart home applications. Born as a proprietary technology, Z-Wave | |||
was specifically designed for this particular use case. Recently, | was specifically designed for this particular use case. Recently, | |||
the Z-Wave radio interface (physical and MAC layers) has been | the Z-Wave radio interface (physical and MAC layers) has been | |||
standardized as the ITU-T G.9959 specification. | standardized as the ITU-T G.9959 specification [G.9959]. | |||
Example: Use of ITU-T G.9959 for Home Automation | Example: Use of ITU-T G.9959 for Home Automation | |||
A variety of home devices (e.g., light dimmers/switches, plugs, | A variety of home devices (e.g., light dimmers/switches, plugs, | |||
thermostats, blinds/curtains, and remote controls) are augmented with | thermostats, blinds/curtains, and remote controls) are augmented | |||
ITU-T G.9959 interfaces. A user may turn on/off or may control home | with ITU-T G.9959 interfaces. A user may turn home appliances on | |||
appliances by pressing a wall switch or by pressing a button in a | and off, or the user may control them by pressing a wall switch or | |||
remote control. Scenes may be programmed, so that after a given | a button on a remote control. Scenes may be programmed so that | |||
event, the home devices adopt a specific configuration. Sensors may | the home devices adopt a specific configuration after a given | |||
also periodically send measurements of several parameters (e.g., gas | event. Sensors may also periodically send measurements of several | |||
presence, light, temperature, humidity) which are collected at a sink | parameters (e.g., gas presence, light, temperature, humidity), | |||
device, or may generate commands for actuators (e.g., a smoke sensor | which are collected at a sink device, or may generate commands for | |||
may send an alarm message to a safety system). | actuators (e.g., a smoke sensor may send an alarm message to a | |||
safety system). | ||||
The devices involved in the described scenario are nodes of a network | The devices involved in the described scenario are nodes of a network | |||
that follows the mesh topology, which is suitable for path diversity | that follows the mesh topology, which is suitable for path diversity | |||
to face indoor multipath propagation issues. The multihop paradigm | to face indoor multipath propagation issues. The multi-hop paradigm | |||
allows end-to-end connectivity when direct range communication is not | allows end-to-end connectivity when direct range communication is not | |||
possible. | possible. | |||
5.2. Use case of Bluetooth LE: Smartphone-based Interaction | 5.2. Use Case of Bluetooth LE: Smartphone-Based Interaction | |||
The key feature behind the current high Bluetooth LE momentum is its | The key feature behind the current high Bluetooth LE momentum is its | |||
support in a large majority of smartphones in the market. Bluetooth | support in a large majority of smartphones in the market. Bluetooth | |||
LE can be used to allow the interaction between the smartphone and | LE can be used to allow interaction between a smartphone and | |||
surrounding sensors or actuators. Furthermore, Bluetooth LE is also | surrounding sensors or actuators. Furthermore, Bluetooth LE is also | |||
the main radio interface currently available in wearables. Since a | the main radio interface currently available in wearables. Since a | |||
smartphone typically has several radio interfaces that provide | smartphone typically has several radio interfaces that provide | |||
Internet access, such as Wi-Fi or cellular, the smartphone can act as | Internet access, such as Wi-Fi or cellular, a smartphone can act as a | |||
a gateway for nearby devices such as sensors, actuators or wearables. | gateway for nearby devices, such as sensors, actuators, or wearables. | |||
Bluetooth LE may be used in several domains, including healthcare, | Bluetooth LE may be used in several domains, including healthcare, | |||
sports/wellness, and home automation. | sports/wellness, and home automation. | |||
Example: Use of Bluetooth LE-based Body Area Network for fitness | Example: Use of a Body Area Network Based on Bluetooth LE for Fitness | |||
A person wears a smartwatch for fitness purposes. The smartwatch has | A person wears a smartwatch for fitness purposes. The smartwatch | |||
several sensors (e.g., heart rate, accelerometer, gyrometer, GPS, | has several sensors (e.g., heart rate, accelerometer, gyrometer, | |||
temperature), a display, and a Bluetooth LE radio interface. The | GPS, and temperature), a display, and a Bluetooth LE radio | |||
smartwatch can show fitness-related statistics on its display. | interface. The smartwatch can show fitness-related statistics on | |||
However, when a paired smartphone is in the range of the smartwatch, | its display. However, when a paired smartphone is in range of the | |||
the latter can report almost real-time measurements of its sensors to | smartwatch, the latter can report almost real-time measurements of | |||
the smartphone, which can forward the data to a cloud service on the | its sensors to the smartphone, which can forward the data to a | |||
Internet. 6lo enables this use case by providing efficient end-to-end | cloud service on the Internet. 6lo enables this use case by | |||
IPv6 support. In addition, the smartwatch can receive notifications | providing efficient end-to-end IPv6 support. In addition, the | |||
(e.g., alarm signals) from the cloud service via the smartphone. On | smartwatch can receive notifications (e.g., alarm signals) from | |||
the other hand, the smartphone may locally generate messages for the | the cloud service via the smartphone. On the other hand, the | |||
smartwatch, such as e-mail reception or calendar notifications. | smartphone may locally generate messages for the smartwatch, such | |||
as e-mail reception or calendar notifications. | ||||
The functionality supported by the smartwatch may be complemented by | The functionality supported by the smartwatch may be complemented by | |||
other devices such as other on-body sensors, wireless headsets or | other devices, such as other on-body sensors, wireless headsets, or | |||
head-mounted displays. All such devices may connect to the | head-mounted displays. All such devices may connect to the | |||
smartphone creating a star topology network whereby the smartphone is | smartphone, creating a star topology network whereby the smartphone | |||
the central component. Support for extended network topologies | is the central component. Support for extended network topologies | |||
(e.g., mesh networks) is being developed as of the writing. | (e.g., mesh networks) is being developed as of the writing of this | |||
document. | ||||
5.3. Use case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home | 5.3. Use Case of DECT-ULE: Smart Home | |||
DECT is a technology widely used for wireless telephone | DECT is a technology widely used for wireless telephone | |||
communications in residential scenarios. Since DECT-ULE is a low- | communications in residential scenarios. Since DECT-ULE is a low- | |||
power variant of DECT, DECT-ULE can be used to connect constrained | power variant of DECT, DECT-ULE can be used to connect constrained | |||
devices such as sensors and actuators to a Fixed Part, a device that | devices (such as sensors and actuators) to a Fixed Part (FP), a | |||
typically acts as a base station for wireless telephones. In this | device that typically acts as a base station for wireless telephones. | |||
case, additionally, the Fixed Part must have a data network | In this case, additionally, the FP must have a data network | |||
connection. Therefore, DECT-ULE is especially suitable for the | connection. Therefore, DECT-ULE is especially suitable for the | |||
connected home space in application areas such as home automation, | connected home space in application areas such as home automation, | |||
smart metering, safety, and healthcare. Since DECT-ULE uses | smart metering, safety, and healthcare. Since DECT-ULE uses | |||
dedicated bandwidth, it avoids this coexistence issues suffered by | dedicated bandwidth, it avoids this coexistence issues suffered by | |||
other technologies that use e.g., ISM frequency bands. | other technologies that use, for example, Industrial, Scientific, and | |||
Medical (ISM) frequency bands. | ||||
Example: Use of DECT-ULE for Smart Metering | Example: Use of DECT-ULE for Smart Metering | |||
The smart electricity meter of a home is equipped with a DECT-ULE | The smart electricity meter of a home is equipped with a DECT-ULE | |||
transceiver. This device is in the coverage range of the Fixed Part | transceiver. This device is in the coverage range of the FP of | |||
of the home. The Fixed Part can act as a router connected to the | the home. The FP can act as a router connected to the Internet. | |||
Internet. This way, the smart meter can transmit electricity | This way, the smart meter can transmit electricity consumption | |||
consumption readings through the DECT-ULE link with the Fixed Part, | readings through the DECT-ULE link with the FP, and the latter can | |||
and the latter can forward such readings to the utility company using | forward such readings to the utility company using Wide Area | |||
Wide Area Network (WAN) links. The meter can also receive queries | Network (WAN) links. The meter can also receive queries from the | |||
from the utility company or from an advanced energy control system | utility company or from an advanced energy control system | |||
controlled by the user, which may also be connected to the Fixed Part | controlled by the user, which may also be connected to the FP via | |||
via DECT-ULE. | DECT-ULE. | |||
5.4. Use case of MS/TP: Building Automation Networks | 5.4. Use Case of MS/TP: Building Automation Networks | |||
The primary use case for IPv6 over MS/TP (6LoBAC) is in building | The primary use case for IPv6 over MS/TP (6LoBAC) is in building | |||
automation networks. [BACnet] is the open, international standard | automation networks. [BACnet] is the open, international standard | |||
protocol for building automation, and MS/TP is defined in [BACnet] | protocol for building automation, and MS/TP is defined in [BACnet] | |||
Clause 9. MS/TP was designed to be a low-cost, multi-drop field bus | Clause 9. MS/TP was designed to be a low-cost, multi-drop field bus | |||
to interconnect the most numerous elements (sensors and actuators) of | to interconnect the most numerous elements (sensors and actuators) of | |||
a building automation network to their controllers. A key aspect of | a building automation network to their controllers. A key aspect of | |||
6LoBAC is that it is designed to co-exist with BACnet MS/TP on the | 6LoBAC is that it is designed to co-exist with BACnet MS/TP on the | |||
same link, easing the ultimate transition of some BACnet networks to | same link, easing the ultimate transition of some BACnet networks to | |||
fundamental end-to-end IPv6 transport protocols. New applications | fundamental end-to-end IPv6 transport protocols. New applications | |||
for 6LoBAC may be found in other domains where low cost, long | for 6LoBAC may be found in other domains where low cost, long | |||
distance, and low latency are required. Note that BACnet comprises | distance, and low latency are required. Note that BACnet comprises | |||
various networking solutions other than MS/TP, including the recently | various networking solutions other than MS/TP, including the recently | |||
emerged BACnet IP. However, the latter is based on high-speed | emerged BACnet IP. However, the latter is based on high-speed | |||
Ethernet infrastructure, and it is outside of the constrained node | Ethernet infrastructure, and it is outside of the constrained-node | |||
network scope. | network scope. | |||
Example: Use of 6LoBAC in Building Automation Networks | Example: Use of 6LoBAC in Building Automation Networks | |||
The majority of installations for MS/TP are for "terminal" or | The majority of installations for MS/TP are for "terminal" or | |||
"unitary" controllers, i.e., single zone or room controllers that may | "unitary" controllers, i.e., single zone or room controllers that | |||
connect to HVAC or other controls such as lighting or blinds. The | may connect to HVAC or other controls such as lighting or blinds. | |||
economics of daisy-chaining a single twisted-pair between multiple | The economics of daisy chaining a single twisted pair between | |||
devices is often preferred over home-run, Cat 5-style wiring. | multiple devices is often preferred over home-run, Cat-5-style | |||
wiring. | ||||
A multi-zone controller might be implemented as an IP router between | A multi-zone controller might be implemented as an IP router between | |||
a classical Ethernet link and several 6LoBAC links, fanning out to | a classical Ethernet link and several 6LoBAC links, fanning out to | |||
multiple terminal controllers. | multiple terminal controllers. | |||
The superior distance capabilities of MS/TP (~1 km) compared to other | The superior distance capabilities of MS/TP (~1 km) compared to other | |||
6lo media may suggest its use in applications to connect remote | 6lo media may suggest its use in applications to connect remote | |||
devices to the nearest building infrastructure. For example, remote | devices to the nearest building infrastructure. For example, remote | |||
pumping or measuring stations with moderate bandwidth requirements | pumping or measuring stations with moderate bandwidth requirements | |||
can benefit from the low-cost and robust capabilities of MS/TP over | can benefit from the low-cost and robust capabilities of MS/TP over | |||
other wired technologies such as DSL, and without the line-of-sight | other wired technologies such as DSL, without the line-of-sight | |||
restrictions or hop-by-hop latency of many low-cost wireless | restrictions or hop-by-hop latency of many low-cost wireless | |||
solutions. | solutions. | |||
5.5. Use case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer | 5.5. Use Case of NFC: Alternative Secure Transfer | |||
In different applications, a variety of secured data can be handled | In different applications, a variety of secured data can be handled | |||
and transferred. Depending on the security level of the data, | and transferred. Depending on the security level of the data, | |||
different transfer methods can be alternatively selected. | different transfer methods can be alternatively selected. | |||
Example: Use of NFC for Secure Transfer in Healthcare Services with | Example: Use of NFC for Secure Transfer in Healthcare Services with | |||
Tele-Assistance | Tele-Assistance | |||
A senior citizen who lives alone wears one to several wearable 6lo | An older adult who lives alone wears one to several wearable 6lo | |||
devices to measure heartbeat, pulse rate. Other 6lo devices are | devices to measure heartbeat, pulse rate, etc. Other 6lo devices | |||
densely installed at home for movement detection. A 6LBR at home | are densely installed at home for movement detection. A 6LBR at | |||
will send the sensed information to a connected healthcare center. | home will send the sensed information to a connected healthcare | |||
Portable base stations with displays may be used to check the data at | center. Portable base stations with displays may be used to check | |||
home, as well. Data is gathered in both periodic and event-driven | the data at home, as well. Data is gathered in both periodic and | |||
fashion. In this application, event-driven data can be very time- | event-driven fashion. In this application, event-driven data can | |||
critical. In addition, privacy also becomes a serious issue in this | be very time critical. In addition, privacy becomes a serious | |||
case, as the sensed data is very personal. | issue in this case, as the sensed data is very personal. | |||
While the senior citizen is provided audio and video healthcare | While the older adult is provided audio and video healthcare services | |||
services by a tele-assistance based on cellular connections, the | by a tele-assistance based on cellular connections, the older adult | |||
senior citizen can alternatively use NFC connections to transfer the | can alternatively use NFC connections to transfer the personal sensed | |||
personal sensed data to the tele-assistance. Hackers can overhear | data to the tele-assistance. Hackers can overhear the data based on | |||
the data based on the cellular connection, but they cannot gather the | the cellular connection, but they cannot gather the personal data | |||
personal data over the NFC connection. | over the NFC connection. | |||
5.6. Use case of PLC: Smart Grid | 5.6. Use Case of PLC: Smart Grid | |||
The smart grid concept is based on deploying numerous operational and | The smart grid concept is based on deploying numerous operational and | |||
energy measuring sub-systems in an electricity grid system. It | energy measuring subsystems in an electricity grid system. It | |||
comprises multiple administrative levels/segments to provide | comprises multiple administrative levels and segments to provide | |||
connectivity among these numerous components. Last mile connectivity | connectivity among these numerous components. Last mile connectivity | |||
is established over the Low Voltage segment, whereas connectivity | is established over the Low-Voltage segment, whereas connectivity | |||
over electricity distribution takes place in the High Voltage | over electricity distribution takes place over the High-Voltage | |||
segment. Smart grid systems include AMI, Demand Response, Home | segment. Smart grid systems include AMI, Demand Response, Home | |||
Energy Management System, Wide Area Situational Awareness (WASA), | Energy Management System, and Wide Area Situational Awareness (WASA), | |||
among others. | among others. | |||
Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in Smart | Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in a | |||
Grid, PLC enjoys the advantage of reliable data communication over | smart grid, PLC benefits from reliable data communication over | |||
electrical power lines that are already present, and the deployment | electrical power lines that are already present, and the deployment | |||
cost can be comparable to wireless technologies. The 6lo-related | cost can be comparable to wireless technologies. The 6lo-related | |||
scenarios for PLC mainly lie in the LV PLC networks with most | scenarios for PLC mainly lie in the Low-Voltage PLC networks with | |||
applications in the area of advanced metering infrastructure, | most applications in the area of advanced metering infrastructure, | |||
vehicle-to-grid communications, in-home energy management, and smart | vehicle-to-grid communications, in-home energy management, and smart | |||
street lighting. | street lighting. | |||
Example: Use of PLC for AMI | Example: Use of PLC for AMI | |||
Household electricity meters transmit time-based data of electric | Household electricity meters transmit time-based data of electric | |||
power consumption through PLC. Data concentrators receive all the | power consumption through PLC. Data concentrators receive all the | |||
meter data in their corresponding living districts and send them to | meter data in their corresponding living districts and send them | |||
the Meter Data Management System through a WAN network (e.g., Medium- | to the Meter Data Management System through a WAN network (e.g., | |||
Voltage PLC, Ethernet, or GPRS) for storage and analysis. Two-way | Medium-Voltage PLC, Ethernet, or General Packet Radio Service | |||
communications are enabled which means smart meters can do actions | (GPRS)) for storage and analysis. Two-way communications are | |||
like notification of electricity charges according to the commands | enabled, which means smart meters can perform actions like | |||
from the utility company. | notification of electricity charges according to the commands from | |||
the utility company. | ||||
With the existing power line infrastructure as communication medium, | With the existing power line infrastructure as a communication | |||
cost on building up the PLC network is naturally saved, and more | medium, the cost of building up the PLC network is naturally saved, | |||
importantly, labor and operational costs can be minimized from a | and more importantly, labor and operational costs can be minimized | |||
long-term perspective. Furthermore, this AMI application speeds up | from a long-term perspective. Furthermore, this AMI application | |||
electricity charging, reduces losses by restraining power theft, and | speeds up electricity charging, reduces losses by restraining power | |||
helps to manage the health of the grid based on line loss analysis. | theft, and helps to manage the health of the grid based on line loss | |||
analysis. | ||||
Example: Use of PLC (IEEE Std 1901.1) for WASA in Smart Grid | Example: Use of PLC (IEEE Std 1901.1) for WASA in a Smart Grid | |||
Many sub-systems of Smart Grid require low data rates, and narrowband | Many subsystems of a smart grid require low data rates, and | |||
variants (e.g., IEEE Std 1901.1) of PLC fulfill such requirements. | narrowband variants (e.g., IEEE Std 1901.1) of PLC fulfill such | |||
Recently, more complex scenarios are emerging that require higher | requirements. Recently, more complex scenarios are emerging that | |||
data rates. | require higher data rates. | |||
A WASA sub-system is an appropriate example that collects large | A WASA subsystem is an appropriate example that collects large | |||
amounts of information about the current state of the grid over a | amounts of information about the current state of the grid over a | |||
wide area from electric substations as well as power transmission | wide area from electric substations as well as power transmission | |||
lines. The collected feedback is used for monitoring, controlling, | lines. The collected feedback is used for monitoring, controlling, | |||
and protecting all the sub-systems. | and protecting all the subsystems. | |||
6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
There are no IANA considerations related to this document. | This document has no IANA actions. | |||
7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
This document does not create security concerns in addition to those | This document does not create security concerns in addition to those | |||
described in the Security Considerations sections of the 6lo | described in the Security Considerations sections of the 6lo | |||
adaptation layers considered in this document [RFC7428], [RFC7668], | adaptation layers considered in this document [RFC7428], [RFC7668], | |||
[RFC8105], [RFC8163], [RFC9159], [I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc], and [RFC9354]. | [RFC8105], [RFC8163], [RFC9159], [RFC9428], and [RFC9354]. | |||
Neighbor Discovery in 6lo links may be susceptible to threats as | Neighbor Discovery in 6lo links may be susceptible to threats as | |||
detailed in [RFC3756]. Mesh routing is expected to be common in some | detailed in [RFC3756]. Mesh routing is expected to be common in some | |||
6lo networks, such as ITU-T G.9959 networks, BLE mesh networks and | 6lo networks, such as ITU-T G.9959 networks, Bluetooth LE mesh | |||
PLC networks. This implies additional threats due to ad hoc routing | networks, and PLC networks. This implies additional threats due to | |||
as per [KW03]. Most of the L2 technologies considered in this | ad hoc routing as per [KW03]. Most of the L2 technologies considered | |||
document (i.e., ITU-T G.9959, BLE, DECT-ULE, and PLC) support link- | in this document (i.e., ITU-T G.9959, Bluetooth LE, DECT-ULE, and | |||
layer security. Making use of such provisions will alleviate the | PLC) support link-layer security. Making use of such provisions will | |||
threats mentioned above. Note that NFC is often considered to offer | alleviate the threats mentioned above. Note that NFC is often | |||
intrinsic security properties due to its short link range. MS/TP | considered to offer intrinsic security properties due to its short | |||
does not support link-layer security, since in its original BACnet | link range. MS/TP does not support link-layer security, since in its | |||
protocol stack, security is provided at the network layer; thus, | original BACnet protocol stack, security is provided at the network | |||
alternative security functionality needs to be used for a 6lo-based | layer; thus, alternative security functionality needs to be used for | |||
protocol stack over MS/TP. | a 6lo-based protocol stack over MS/TP. | |||
End-to-end communication is expected to be secured by means of common | End-to-end communication is expected to be secured by means of common | |||
mechanisms, such as IPsec, TLS/DTLS, object security [RFC8613], and | mechanisms, such as IPsec, DTLS/TLS, Object Security [RFC8613], and | |||
EDHOC(Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE) [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]. | Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC) [EDHOC]. | |||
The 6lo stack uses the IPv6 addressing model. The implications for | The 6lo stack uses the IPv6 addressing model. The implications for | |||
privacy and network performance of using L2-address-derived IPv6 | privacy and network performance of using L2-address-derived IPv6 | |||
addresses need to be considered [RFC8065]. | addresses need to be considered [RFC8065]. | |||
8. Acknowledgements | 8. References | |||
Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government | ||||
through the Jose Castillejo CAS15/00336 grant, the TEC2016-79988-P | ||||
grant, and the PID2019-106808RA-I00 grant, and by Secretaria | ||||
d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i Coneixement de | ||||
la Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 through grant SGR 376. His | ||||
contribution to this work has been carried out in part during his | ||||
stay as a visiting scholar at the Computer Laboratory of the | ||||
University of Cambridge. | ||||
Thomas Watteyne, Pascal Thubert, Xavier Vilajosana, Daniel Migault, | ||||
Jianqiang Hou, Kerry Lynn, S.V.R. Anand, and Seyed Mahdi Darroudi | ||||
have provided valuable feedback for this draft. | ||||
Das Subir and Michel Veillette have provided valuable information of | ||||
jupiterMesh and Paul Duffy has provided valuable information of Wi- | ||||
SUN for this draft. Also, Jianqiang Hou has provided valuable | ||||
information of G3-PLC and Netricity for this draft. Take Aanstoot, | ||||
Kerry Lynn, and Dave Robin have provided valuable information of MS/ | ||||
TP and practical use case of MS/TP for this draft. | ||||
Deoknyong Ko has provided relevant text of LTE-MTC and he shared his | ||||
experience to deploy IPv6 and 6lo technologies over LTE MTC in SK | ||||
Telecom. | ||||
9. References | ||||
9.1. Normative References | 8.1. Normative References | |||
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, | [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, | |||
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, | "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. | |||
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless | [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless | |||
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, | Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>. | |||
skipping to change at page 22, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at line 977 ¶ | |||
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, | (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | |||
[RFC9159] Gomez, C., Darroudi, S.M., Savolainen, T., and M. Spoerk, | [RFC9159] Gomez, C., Darroudi, S.M., Savolainen, T., and M. Spoerk, | |||
"IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy Using the Internet | "IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy Using the Internet | |||
Protocol Support Profile (IPSP)", RFC 9159, | Protocol Support Profile (IPSP)", RFC 9159, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9159, December 2021, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9159, December 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9159>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9159>. | |||
[RFC9354] Hou, J., Liu, B., Hong, Y., Tang, X., and C. Perkins, | [RFC9354] Hou, J., Liu, B., Hong, Y-G., Tang, X., and C. Perkins, | |||
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Power Line | "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Power Line | |||
Communication (PLC) Networks", RFC 9354, | Communication (PLC) Networks", RFC 9354, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9354, January 2023, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9354, January 2023, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9354>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9354>. | |||
9.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
[BACnet] "ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for | [BACnet] ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for Building | |||
Building Automation and Control Networks", ANSI/ASHRAE | Automation and Control Networks (ANSI Approved)", ASHRAE | |||
Standard 135-2016", January 2016, | Standard 135-2020, October 2020, | |||
<https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae- | <https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae- | |||
135-2016?product_id=1918140#jumps>. | 135-2020?product_id=2191852>. | |||
[BTCorev4.1] | [BTCorev5.4] | |||
Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Core | Bluetooth, "Core Specification Version 5.4", January 2012, | |||
Specification Version 4.1", December 2013, | ||||
<https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/core- | <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/core- | |||
specification-4-1/>. | specification-5-4/>. | |||
[G.9903] "International Telecommunication Union, "Narrowband | ||||
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing power line | ||||
communication transceivers for G3-PLC networks", ITU-T | ||||
Recommendation", August 2017. | ||||
[G.9959] "International Telecommunication Union, "Short range | ||||
narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers - PHY | ||||
and MAC layer specifications", ITU-T Recommendation", | ||||
January 2015. | ||||
[G3-PLC] "G3-PLC Alliance", <https://g3-plc.com>. | [EDHOC] Selander, G., Preuß Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, | |||
"Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", Work in | ||||
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-22, 25 | ||||
August 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- | ||||
ietf-lake-edhoc-22>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-6lo-nfc] | [G.9903] ITU-T, "Narrowband orthogonal frequency division | |||
Choi, Y., Hong, Y., and J. Youn, "Transmission of IPv6 | multiplexing power line communication transceivers for | |||
Packets over Near Field Communication", Work in Progress, | G3-PLC networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.9903, August | |||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-22, 9 March 2023, | 2017, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9903-201708-I/en>. | |||
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6lo-nfc- | ||||
22.txt>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc] | [G.9959] ITU-T, "Short range narrow-band digital radiocommunication | |||
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral | transceivers - PHY, MAC, SAR and LLC layer | |||
Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", Work in Progress, | specifications", ITU-T Recommendation G.9959, January | |||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-19, 3 February 2023, | 2015, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9959-201501-I/en>. | |||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lake- | ||||
edhoc-19>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison] | [G3-PLC] "G3-Alliance", <https://g3-plc.com>. | |||
Mattsson, J. P., Palombini, F., and M. Vu?ini?, | ||||
"Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol- | ||||
comparison-07, 24 January 2023, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig- | ||||
security-protocol-comparison-07>. | ||||
[IEEE1901] "IEEE Standard, IEEE Std 1901-2010 - IEEE Standard for | [IEEE-1901] | |||
Broadband over Power Line Networks: Medium Access Control | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Broadband over Power Line | |||
and Physical Layer Specifications", 2010, | Networks: Medium Access Control and Physical Layer | |||
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/ | Specifications", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2010.5678772, IEEE | |||
standard/1901-2010.html>. | Std 1901-2010, December 2010, | |||
<https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1901/4953/>. | ||||
[IEEE1901.1] | [IEEE-1901.1] | |||
"IEEE Standard, IEEE Std 1901.1-2018 - IEEE Standard for | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Medium Frequency (less than 12 | |||
Medium Frequency (less than 12 MHz) Power Line | MHz) Power Line Communications for Smart Grid | |||
Communications for Smart Grid Applications", 2018, | Applications", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8360785, IEEE | |||
Std 1901.1-2018, May 2018, | ||||
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8360785>. | <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8360785>. | |||
[IEEE1901.2] | [IEEE-1901.2] | |||
"IEEE Standard, IEEE Std 1901.2-2013 - IEEE Standard for | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Frequency (less than 500 kHz) | |||
Low-Frequency (less than 500 kHz) Narrowband Power Line | Narrowband Power Line Communications for Smart Grid | |||
Communications for Smart Grid Applications", 2013, | Applications", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6679210, IEEE | |||
Std 1901.2-2013, December 2013, | ||||
<https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1901.2/4833/>. | <https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1901.2/4833/>. | |||
[IEEE802154] | [IEEE-802.15.4] | |||
IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", | |||
Wireless Networks, IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2020", IEEE , 2020, | DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9144691, IEEE Std 802.15.4-2020, | |||
July 2020, | ||||
<https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.15.4/7029/>. | <https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.15.4/7029/>. | |||
[IEEE802159] | [IEEE-802.15.9] | |||
IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Standard for Transport of Key | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Transport of Key Management | |||
Management Protocol (KMP) Datagrams", 2021, | Protocol (KMP) Datagrams", | |||
<https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.15.9/7967/>. | DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9690134, IEEE Std 802.15.9-2021, | |||
January 2022, | ||||
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9690134>. | ||||
[IPSP] Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Internet | [IPSP] Bluetooth, "Internet Protocol Support Profile 1.0", | |||
Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0", | December 2014, | |||
December 2014, <https://www.bluetooth.org/en- | <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/internet- | |||
us/specification/adopted-specifications>.>. | protocol-support-profile-1-0/>. | |||
[KW03] "Karlof, Chris and Wagner, David, "Secure Routing in | [KW03] Karlof, C. and D. Wagner, "Secure routing in wireless | |||
Sensor Networks: Attacks and Countermeasures", Elsevier's | sensor networks: attacks and countermeasures", Volume 1, | |||
AdHoc Networks Journal, Special Issue on Sensor Network | Issues 2-3, Pages 293-315, | |||
Applications and Protocols vol 1, issues 2-3", September | DOI 10.1016/S1570-8705(03)00008-8, September 2003, | |||
2003. | <https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-8705(03)00008-8>. | |||
[LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol, Version | [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "Logical Link Control Protocol Technical | |||
1.4", NFC Forum Technical Specification , January 2021, | Specification", Version 1.4, December 2022, <https://nfc- | |||
<https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>. | forum.org/build/specifications/logical-link-control- | |||
protocol-technical-specification/>. | ||||
[NETRICITY] | [NETRICITY] | |||
"Netricity program in HomePlug Powerline Alliance", | Netricity, "The Netricity program addresses the need for | |||
long range powerline networking for outside-the-home, | ||||
smart meter-to-grid, and industrial control applications", | ||||
<https://www.netricity.org/>. | <https://www.netricity.org/>. | |||
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 | [RFC3756] Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 | |||
Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", | Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", | |||
RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004, | RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3756>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3756>. | |||
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 | [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 | |||
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, | Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, | DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, | |||
skipping to change at page 26, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1129 ¶ | |||
[RFC8376] Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) | [RFC8376] Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) | |||
Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018, | Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376>. | |||
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. | [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. | |||
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power | Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor | Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor | |||
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, | Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. | |||
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz, | [RFC8613] Selander, G., Preuß Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. | |||
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments | Seitz, "Object Security for Constrained RESTful | |||
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019, | Environments (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>. | July 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>. | |||
[RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik, | [RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik, | |||
"Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and | "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and | |||
Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November | Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November | |||
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>. | 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>. | |||
[RFC8929] Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, | [RFC8929] Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, | |||
"IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10.17487/RFC8929, | "IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10.17487/RFC8929, | |||
November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8929>. | November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8929>. | |||
skipping to change at page 26, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1161 ¶ | |||
Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC9010, April 2021, | Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC9010, April 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9010>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9010>. | |||
[RFC9035] Thubert, P., Ed. and L. Zhao, "A Routing Protocol for Low- | [RFC9035] Thubert, P., Ed. and L. Zhao, "A Routing Protocol for Low- | |||
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination-Oriented | Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination-Oriented | |||
Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Configuration Option for | Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Configuration Option for | |||
the 6LoWPAN Routing Header", RFC 9035, | the 6LoWPAN Routing Header", RFC 9035, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9035, April 2021, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9035, April 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9035>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9035>. | |||
[Thread] "Thread Group", <https://www.threadgroup.org/Support>. | [RFC9428] Choi, Y., Ed., Hong, Y., and J. Youn, "Transmission of | |||
IPv6 Packets over Near Field Communication", RFC 9428, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9428, July 2023, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9428>. | ||||
[SEC-PROT-COMP] | ||||
Preuß Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and M. Vučinić, | ||||
"Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol- | ||||
comparison-02, 11 April 2023, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-iotops- | ||||
security-protocol-comparison-02>. | ||||
[Thread] Thread, "Resources", | ||||
<https://www.threadgroup.org/Support>. | ||||
[TIA-485-A] | [TIA-485-A] | |||
"TIA, "Electrical Characteristics of Generators and | TIA, "Electrical Characteristics of Generators and | |||
Receivers for Use in Balanced Digital Multipoint Systems", | Receivers for Use in Balanced Digital Multipoint Systems", | |||
TIA-485-A (Revision of TIA-485)", March 2003, | TIA-485-A, Revision of TIA-485, March 1998, | |||
<https://global.ihs.com/ | <https://global.ihs.com/ | |||
doc_detail.cfm?item_s_key=00032964>. | doc_detail.cfm?item_s_key=00032964>. | |||
[TS102.939-1] | [TS102.939-1] | |||
ETSI, "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications | ETSI, "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications | |||
(DECT); Ultra Low Energy (ULE); Machine to Machine | (DECT); Ultra Low Energy (ULE); Machine to Machine | |||
Communications; Part 1: Home Automation Network (phase | Communications; Part 1: Home Automation Network (phase | |||
1)", Technical Specification ETSI TS 102 939-1, V1.2.1, | 1)", V1.2.1, ETSI-TS 102 939-1, March 2015, | |||
March 2015, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/ | <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/ | |||
etsi_ts/102900_102999/10293901/01.02.01_60/ | etsi_ts/102900_102999/10293901/01.02.01_60/ | |||
ts_10293901v010201p.pdf>. | ts_10293901v010201p.pdf>. | |||
[TS102.939-2] | [TS102.939-2] | |||
ETSI, ""Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications | ETSI, "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications | |||
(DECT); Ultra Low Energy (ULE); Machine to Machine | (DECT); Ultra Low Energy (ULE); Machine to Machine | |||
Communications; Part 2: Home Automation Network (phase | Communications; Part 2: Home Automation Network (phase | |||
2)", Technical Specification ETSI TS 102 939-2, V1.1.1, | 2)", V1.1.1, ETSI TS 102 939-2, March 2015, | |||
March 2015, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/ | <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/ | |||
etsi_ts/102900_102999/10293902/01.01.01_60/ | etsi_ts/102900_102999/10293902/01.01.01_60/ | |||
ts_10293902v010101p.pdf>. | ts_10293902v010101p.pdf>. | |||
[Wi-SUN] "Wi-SUN Alliance", <https://www.wi-sun.org>. | [Wi-SUN] "Wi-SUN Alliance", <https://www.wi-sun.org>. | |||
Appendix A. Design Space Dimensions for 6lo Deployment | Appendix A. Design Space Dimensions for 6lo Deployment | |||
[RFC6568] lists the dimensions used to describe the design space of | [RFC6568] lists the dimensions used to describe the design space of | |||
wireless sensor networks in the context of the 6LoWPAN working group. | wireless sensor networks in the context of the 6LoWPAN Working Group. | |||
The design space is already limited by the unique characteristics of | The design space is already limited by the unique characteristics of | |||
a LoWPAN (e.g., low power, short range, low bit rate). In [RFC6568], | a LoWPAN (e.g., low power, short range, low bit rate). In Section 2 | |||
the following design space dimensions are described: Deployment, | of [RFC6568], the following design space dimensions are described: | |||
Network size, Power source, Connectivity, Multi-hop communication, | Deployment, Network Size, Power Source, Connectivity, Multi-Hop | |||
Traffic pattern, Mobility, Quality of Service (QoS). However, in | Communication, Traffic Pattern, Mobility, and Quality of Service | |||
this document, the following design space dimensions are considered: | (QoS). However, in this document, the following design space | |||
dimensions are considered: | ||||
* Deployment/Bootstrapping: 6lo nodes can be connected randomly, or | Deployment/Bootstrapping: | |||
in an organized manner. The bootstrapping has different | 6lo nodes can be connected randomly or in an organized manner. | |||
characteristics for each link layer technology. | The bootstrapping has different characteristics for each link- | |||
layer technology. | ||||
* Topology: Topology of 6lo networks may inherently follow the | Topology: | |||
characteristics of each link layer technology. Point-to-point, | Topology of 6lo networks may inherently follow the characteristics | |||
star, tree or mesh topologies can be configured, depending on the | of each link-layer technology. Point-to-point, star, tree, or | |||
link layer technology considered. | mesh topologies can be configured, depending on the link-layer | |||
technology considered. | ||||
* L2-Mesh or L3-Mesh: L2-mesh and L3-mesh may inherently follow the | L2-mesh or L3-mesh: | |||
characteristics of each link layer technology. Some link layer | L2-mesh and L3-mesh may inherently follow the characteristics of | |||
technologies may support L2-mesh and some may not support. | each link-layer technology. Some link-layer technologies may | |||
support L2-mesh and some may not. | ||||
* Multi-link subnet, single subnet: The selection of multi-link | Multi-link Subnet and Single Subnet: | |||
subnet and single subnet depends on connectivity and the number of | The selection of a multi-link subnet and a single subnet depends | |||
6lo nodes. | on connectivity and the number of 6lo nodes. | |||
* Data rate: Typically, the link layer technologies of 6lo have low | Data Rate: | |||
rate of data transmission. But, by adjusting the MTU, it can | Typically, the link-layer technologies of 6lo have a low rate of | |||
deliver higher upper layer data rate. | data transmission. However, by adjusting the MTU, it can deliver | |||
a higher upper-layer data rate. | ||||
* Buffering requirements: Some 6lo use case may require higher data | Buffering Requirements: | |||
rate than the link layer technology support. In this case, a | Some 6lo use case may require a higher data rate than the link- | |||
buffering mechanism, telling the application to throttle its | layer technology support. In this case, a buffering mechanism, | |||
generation of data, and compression of the data are possible to | telling the application to throttle its generation of data, and | |||
manage the data. | compression of the data are possible to manage the data. | |||
* Security and Privacy Requirements: Some 6lo use case can involve | Security and Privacy Requirements: | |||
transferring some important and personal data between 6lo nodes. | Some 6lo use cases can involve transferring some important and | |||
In this case, high-level security support is required. | personal data between 6lo nodes. In this case, high-level | |||
security support is required. | ||||
* Mobility across 6lo networks and subnets: The movement of 6lo | Mobility across 6lo Networks and Subnets: | |||
nodes depends on the 6lo use case. If the 6lo nodes can move or | The movement of 6lo nodes depends on the 6lo use case. If the 6lo | |||
be moved around, a mobility management mechanism is required. | nodes can move or be moved around, a mobility management mechanism | |||
is required. | ||||
* Time synchronization requirements: The requirement of time | Time Synchronization Requirements: | |||
synchronization of the upper layer service is dependent on the use | The requirement of time synchronization of the upper-layer service | |||
case. For some 6lo use case related to health service, the | is dependent on the use case. For some 6lo use cases related to | |||
measured data must be recorded with exact time. | health service, the measured data must be recorded with the exact | |||
time. | ||||
* Reliability and QoS: Some 6lo use case requires high reliability, | Reliability and QoS: | |||
for example, real-time or health-related services. | Some 6lo use cases require high reliability, for example, real- | |||
time or health-related services. | ||||
* Traffic patterns: 6lo use cases may involve various traffic | Traffic Patterns: | |||
patterns. For example, some 6lo use cases may require short data | 6lo use cases may involve various traffic patterns. For example, | |||
lengths and random transmission. Some 6lo use case may require | some 6lo use cases may require short data lengths and random | |||
continuous data transmission and discontinuous data transmission. | transmission. Some 6lo use cases may require continuous data | |||
transmission and discontinuous data transmission. | ||||
* Security Bootstrapping: Without the external operations, 6lo nodes | Security Bootstrapping: | |||
must have a security bootstrapping mechanism. | Without the external operations, 6lo nodes must have a security | |||
bootstrapping mechanism. | ||||
* Power use strategy: to enable certain use cases, there may be | Power Use Strategy: | |||
requirements on the class of energy availability and the strategy | To enable certain use cases, there may be requirements on the | |||
followed for using power for communication [RFC7228]. Each link | class of energy availability and the strategy followed for using | |||
layer technology defines a particular power use strategy which may | power for communication [RFC7228]. Each link-layer technology | |||
be tuned [RFC8352]. Readers are expected to be familiar with | defines a particular power use strategy that may be tuned | |||
[RFC7228] terminology. | [RFC8352]. Readers are expected to be familiar with the | |||
terminology found in [RFC7228]. | ||||
* Update firmware requirements: Most 6lo use cases will need a | Update Firmware Requirements: | |||
mechanism for updating firmware. In these cases, support for over | Most 6lo use cases will need a mechanism to update firmware. In | |||
the air updates is required, probably in a broadcast mode when | these cases, support for over-the-air updates is required, | |||
bandwidth is low and the number of identical devices is high. | probably in a broadcast mode when bandwidth is low and the number | |||
of identical devices is high. | ||||
* Wired vs. Wireless: Plenty of 6lo link layer technologies are | Wired vs. Wireless: | |||
wireless, except MS/TP and PLC. The selection of wired or | Plenty of 6lo link-layer technologies are wireless, except MS/TP | |||
wireless link layer technology is mainly dependent on the | and PLC. The selection of wired or wireless link-layer technology | |||
requirements of the 6lo use cases and the characteristics of | is mainly dependent on the requirements of the 6lo use cases and | |||
wired/wireless technologies. | the characteristics of wired and wireless technologies. | |||
Acknowledgements | ||||
Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government | ||||
through the Jose Castillejo CAS15/00336 grant, the TEC2016-79988-P | ||||
grant, and the PID2019-106808RA-I00 grant as well as by Secretaria | ||||
d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i Coneixement de | ||||
la Generalitat de Catalunya through grants 2017 SGR 376 and 2021 SGR | ||||
00330. His contribution to this work has been carried out in part | ||||
during his stay as a visiting scholar at the Computer Laboratory of | ||||
the University of Cambridge. | ||||
Thomas Watteyne, Pascal Thubert, Xavier Vilajosana, Daniel Migault, | ||||
Jianqiang Hou, Kerry Lynn, S.V.R. Anand, and Seyed Mahdi Darroudi | ||||
have provided valuable feedback for this document. | ||||
Das Subir and Michel Veillette have provided valuable information of | ||||
jupiterMesh, and Paul Duffy has provided valuable information of Wi- | ||||
SUN for this document. Also, Jianqiang Hou has provided valuable | ||||
information of G3-PLC and Netricity for this document. Take | ||||
Aanstoot, Kerry Lynn, and Dave Robin have provided valuable | ||||
information of MS/TP and practical use case of MS/TP for this | ||||
document. | ||||
Deoknyong Ko has provided relevant text of LTE-MTC, and he shared his | ||||
experience to deploy IPv6 and 6lo technologies over LTE MTC in SK | ||||
Telecom. | ||||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Yong-Geun Hong | Yong-Geun Hong | |||
Daejeon University | Daejeon University | |||
62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu | 62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu | |||
Daejeon | Daejeon | |||
34520 | 34520 | |||
South Korea | South Korea | |||
Phone: +82 42 280 4841 | Phone: +82 42 280 4841 | |||
Email: yonggeun.hong@gmail.com | Email: yonggeun.hong@gmail.com | |||
Carles Gomez | Carles Gomez | |||
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya/Fundacio i2cat | Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya | |||
C/Esteve Terradas, 7 | C/Esteve Terradas, 7 | |||
08860 Castelldefels | 08860 Castelldefels | |||
Spain | Spain | |||
Email: carles.gomez@upc.edu | Email: carles.gomez@upc.edu | |||
Younghwan Choi | Younghwan Choi | |||
ETRI | ETRI | |||
218 Gajeongno, Yuseong | 218 Gajeongno, Yuseong | |||
Daejeon | Daejeon | |||
34129 | 34129 | |||
South Korea | South Korea | |||
Phone: +82 42 860 1429 | Phone: +82 42 860 1429 | |||
Email: yhc@etri.re.kr | Email: yhc@etri.re.kr | |||
Abdur Rashid Sangi | Abdur Rashid Sangi | |||
Wenzhou-Kean University | Wenzhou-Kean University | |||
88 Daxue Road, Ouhai, Wenzhou | 88 Daxue Road, Ouhai, Wenzhou | |||
Zhejiang | Zhejiang | |||
325060 | 325060 | |||
P.R. China | China | |||
Email: sangi_bahrian@yahoo.com | Email: sangi_bahrian@yahoo.com | |||
Samita Chakrabarti | Samita Chakrabarti | |||
San Jose, CA, | Verizon | |||
Bedminster, NJ | ||||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com | Email: samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com | |||
End of changes. 194 change blocks. | ||||
659 lines changed or deleted | 706 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |