Experiences with RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks
draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2012-01-30
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences
Additional URLs
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         T. Clausen
Internet-Draft                                      A. Colin de Verdiere
Intended status: Informational                                     J. Yi
Expires: August 2, 2012                         LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
                                                              U. Herberg
                                         Fujitsu Laboratories of America
                                                        January 30, 2012

  Experiences with RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy
                                Networks
                  draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-00

Abstract

   With RPL - the "IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-power Lossy Networks" -
   having been published as a Proposed Standard after a ~2-year
   development cycle, this document presents an evaluation of the
   resulting protocol of its applicability and of its limits.  The
   documents presents a selection of observations of the protocol
   characteristics, exposes experiences acquired when producing various
   prototype implementations of RPL, and presents results obtained from
   testing this protocol - by way of network simulations, in network
   testbeds and in deployments.  The document aims at providing a better
   understanding of possible weaknesses and limits of RPL, notably the
   possible directions that further protocol developments should
   explore, in order to address these.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

Clausen, et al.          Expires August 2, 2012                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Experiences with RPL              January 2012

   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  RPL Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  RPL Message Emission Timing - Trickle Timers . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Requirement Of DODAG Root  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  RPL Data Traffic Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Fragmentation Of RPL Control Messages And Data Packet  . . . .  9
     6.1.  Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  The DAO Mechanism: Downward and Point-to-Point Routes  . . . . 10
     7.1.  Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Address Aggregation and Summarization  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Links Assumed Bi-Directional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. Neighbor Unreachability Detection For Unidirectional Links . . 14
     10.1. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   11. RPL Implementability and Complexity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     11.1. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   12. Underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     12.1. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   13. Protocol Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     13.1. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   14. Loops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     14.1. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   15. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Show full document text