LISP Working Group S. Barkai Internet-Draft B. Frenandez-Ruiz Intended status: Experimental O. Serfaty Expires: September 4, 2019 Nexar Inc. A. Rodriguez-Natal F. Maino Cisco Systems A. Cabellos-Aparicio Technical University of Catalonia February 4 2019 Distributed Geo-Spatial LISP Blackboard for Automotive draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon-00 Abstract This document specifies the use of LISP Blackboard for distributed Geo-Spatial Publish/Subscribe automotive applications. 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 https://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 September 4, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Nexagon Publish Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Nexagon Subscribe Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. XTR Sharding-Handover tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction (1) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] splits current IP addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map-and-encap approach that relies on (1) a Mapping System (basically a distributed database) that stores and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) that encapsulate and decapsulate data packets based on the content of those mappings. (2) H3 is a geospatial indexing system using a hexagonal grid that can be (approximately) subdivided into finer and finer hexagonal grids, combining the benefits of a hexagonal grid with hierarchical subdivisions. H3 supports sixteen resolutions. Each finer resolution has cells with one seventh the area of the coarser resolution. Hexagons cannot be perfectly subdivided into seven hexagons, so the finer cells are only approximately contained within a parent cell. Each cell is identified by a 64bit int. (3) The Berkeley Deep Drive (BDD) Industry Consortium investigates state-of- the-art technologies in computer vision and machine learning for automotive applications. BDD based taxonomy of published automotive scene classification. These standards are combined to create an in-network key-value blackboard - reflecting the state of each 1sqm hexagon tile of road. The lisp network maps traffic form vehicle endpoint IP identifiers (EID) to the routing location (RLOC) of h3 hexagon identifier (HID). Th lisp network blackboard bridges the time-space gap between vision & sensory (publishers) - and - driving apps/smart-infrastructure (subscribers). Drivers (EID) communicate with blackboard tiles (HID), EID<=> RLOC <=> HID, small tiles to publish, large tiles to subscribe to regional information. One of of the key use-cases is providing drivers with 20-30 seconds preemptive heads-up on potential hazards and obstacles; across traffic, around the block, beyond turns and curvatures, in a nutshell beyond sensory line-of-site. (1) LISP blackboard keys are 64bit H3 IDs referring to ~1sqm H3 level 13 (2) LISP blackboard values are 64bit compiled-states of each H3 road-tile (3) LISP blackboard pub-sub regions are at H3 level-9 containing l13 tiles (4) LISP Blackboard is sharded to scale state-updates and edge propagation (5) Edge LISP XTRs use the H3 IDs to map publish-subscribe to right shard (6) Edge XTRs are also used to replicate bulk state updates to clients (7) Bulk updates Multicast-replication can use native access multicast / \ / \ / \ H3-level9 | H3-l9 | | H3-l9 | | | . --- \ ___ / --- --- \_____/ --- --- \____/ --- . v v v v . v v \ | / v v . v ((((|)))) >>> EDGE XTR <<< ((((|)))) . /|\ /|\ . RAN RAN . v v v v H3-level13 v v v v ............/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ \/ \/\/\/ \/\/\/\..<> \/\/\/\____/\____/\/\/\____/.......... 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Deployment Assumptions The specification described in this document makes the following deployment assumptions: (1) A unique 64-bit H3 Hex-Tile identifier is associated with each lang-lat (2) Clients (Publisher/Subscriber) and network (Blackboard) share this index (3) A 64-bit automotive BDD state value is associated with each hexagon tile (4) Hexagon state is combined by 16 fields of 4-bit (nibble) up-to 16 enums |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| 0123012301230123012301230123012301230123012301230123012301230123 (5) The following fields describe state information for a given tile Field 0x describes the "freshness" of the state eg last published { 0x: less than 10Sec 1x: less than 20Sec 2x: less than 40Sec 3x: less than 1min 4x: less than 2min 5x: less than 5min 6x: less than 15min 7x: less than 30min 9x: less than 1hour Ax: less than 2hours Bx: less than 8hours Cx: less than 24hours Dx: less than 1week Ex: less than 1month Fx: more than 1month } field 1x: persistent weather or structural { 0x - null 1x - pothole 2x - speed-bump 3x - icy 4x - flooded 5x - snow-cover 6x - snow-deep 7x - construction cone 8x - curve } field 2x: transient or moving obstruction { 0x - null 1x - pedestrian 2x - bike 3x - stopped car / truck 4x - moving car / truck 5x - first responder vehicle 6x - sudden slowdown 7x - oversized-vehicle } field 3x: traffic-light timer countdown { 0x - green now 1x - 1 seconds to green 2x - 2 seconds to green 3x - 3 seconds to green 4x - 4 seconds to green 5x - 5 seconds to green 6x - 6 seconds to green 7x - 7 seconds to green 8x - 8 seconds to green 9x - 9 seconds to green Ax - 10 seconds or less Bx - 20 seconds or less Cx - 30 seconds or less Dx - 40 seconds or less Ex - 50 seconds or less Fx - minute or more left } field 4x: impacted tile from neighboring { 0x - not impacted 1x - light yellow 2x - yellow 3x - light orange 4x - orange 5x - light red 6x - red 7x - light blue 8x - blue } field 5x: incidents { 0x - clear 1x - light collision (fender bender) 2x - hard collision 3x - collision with casualty 4x - recent collision residues 5x - hard break 6x - sharp cornering } field 6x - compiled tile safety rating { } field 7x - reserved field 8x - reserved field 9x - reserved field Ax - reserved field Bx - reserved field Cx - reserved field Dx - reserved field Ex - reserved field Fx - reserved (7) Publish packet contains 1 key-value tuple: |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| | H3 Hexagon ID Key | |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| | H3 Hexagon State-Value | |---------------------------------------------------------------| (8) Any number of fields published in a state can be set to a value (9) If a field is not being addressed by than it should be set to 0x-null (10) Subscribe packets are the same as publish with the entire state set null 4. Nexagon Publish-Procedure (1) Publisher observation (2) Snap to hex accuracy bar (3) Compiling a Publish Packet (4) Publish Packet Source IP (5) Publish Packet Destination IP 5. Nexagon Subscribe Procedure (1) Subscribe to zone hierarchy (2) Subscribe Packet (3) Zone state update packet of upto 100 hexagon tiles 1 |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| | H3 Hexagon ID Key | |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| | H3 Hexagon State-Value | |---------------------------------------------------------------| . . . . . . . . 100|-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| | H3 Hexagon ID Key | |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| | H3 Hexagon State-Value | |---------------------------------------------------------------| 6. XTR Sharding and Handover to blackboard tunnels (1) Map-Resolve hexagon ID to shard location (2) Multicast replication to subscribed EIDs 7. Security Considerations The way to provide a security association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers must be evaluated according to the size of the deployment. For small deployments, it is possible to have a shared key (or set of keys) between the ITRs and the Map-Servers. For larger and Internet-scale deployments, scalability is a concern and further study is needed. 8. Acknowledgments This work is partly funded by the ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR- 13-INFR-009 (https://lisplab.lip6.fr). 9. IANA Considerations This document makes no request to IANA. 10. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), December 2017. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, . Authors' Addresses Sharon Barkai Nexar CA USA Email: sharon.barkai@getnexar.com Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz Nexar London UK Email: b@getnexar.com Ohad Serfaty Nexar Israel Email: ohad@getnexar.com Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA Email: natal@cisco.com Fabio Maino Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA Email: fmaino@cisco.com Albert Cabellos-Aparicio Technical University of Catalonia Barcelona Spain Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu