Internet DRAFT - draft-aguilar-lpwan-schc-convergence
draft-aguilar-lpwan-schc-convergence
lpwan Working Group S. Aguilar
Internet-Draft C. Gomez
Intended status: Standards Track R. Vidal
Expires: 26 April 2023 Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
23 October 2022
SCHC Convergence Profile
draft-aguilar-lpwan-schc-convergence-00
Abstract
The present document defines a profile of Static Context Header
Compression and fragmentation (SCHC) [RFC8724] for multi-radio
devices or multi-network application. This profile can be used
simultaneously over LoRaWAN, Sigfox, NB-IoT and any other technology
that may use SCHC Fragmentation/Reassembly functionality.
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 26 April 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation and Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. SCHC over All Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. SCHC over All Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Single SCHC ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Uplink Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3.1. Uplink ACK-on-Error Mode: Two-byte SCHC Header . . . 8
4.3.2. Downlink Consideration in Uplink Fragmentation . . . 9
4.4. Rule Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. SCHC over All F/R Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.1. Regular SCHC Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.2. All-1 SCHC Fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5.3. SCHC ACK Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5.4. SCHC Receiver-Abort Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5.5. SCHC Sender-Abort Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5.6. SCHC ACK Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The Static Context Header Compression and fragmentation (SCHC)
specification [RFC8724] provides generic adaptation layer
functionality, including Compression/Decompression (C/D) and
Fragmentation and Reassembly (F/R) functionality. The latter offers
three different modes, providing different features.
SCHC over LoRaWAN [RFC9011], SCHC over Sigfox
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-sigfox] and SCHC over NB-IoT
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-nbiot] are technology-specific SCHC profiles,
which provide an optimal configuration of SCHC over the corresponding
technologies. However, the F/R functionalities of these profiles are
not compatible. Therefore, multi-radio devices (e.g., supporting
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
LoRaWAN, Sigfox and NB-IoT interfaces on the same device) require
multiple implementations of the SCHC F/R sublayer, one for each
technology.
Moreover, multi-network solutions, where the same application is
deployed over different LPWAN technologies also require multiple
implementations of the SCHC F/R sublayer, one for each deployment.
To reduce implementation complexity, and enable a single convergent
F/R sublayer, this document provides the F/R details for a SCHC
profile that can be used over all the LPWAN technologies overviewed
in [RFC8376], leveraging the benefits of the Compound ACK. This
profile can also be used over other technologies that may use SCHC
Fragmentation/Reassembly functionality.
2. Terminology
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and
mechanisms defined in [RFC8376] and in [RFC8724].
3. Motivation and Use Cases
3.1. Motivation
IoT applications running over LPWAN devices are tied up to the
selected LPWAN technology. The LPWAN constrains influence the design
of the IoT application itself. This presents problems when migrating
to other LPWANs or networks, as it may imply redesigning the complete
IoT application (from device code to backend code). The LPWAN, as a
Layer 2 (L2), should be transparent to IoT application (and
developers), as it is in the IP domain.
Current advances in the adoption of IPv6 over LPWAN achieved
interoperability for application thanks to SCHC [RFC8724], and a
single SCHC C/D sublayer. However, each LPWAN technology requires a
different implementation of the SCHC F/R sublayer, with different
(but actually very similar) F/R modes. Therefore, an IoT application
using multiple LPWANs (multiple radios o multiple networks) will
require multiple SCHC F/R implementation in device and backend code.
This is not the case for the C/D sublayer.
To reduce code complexity and maintenance, and achieve a single
convergent SCHC F/R sublayer, this document provides a SCHC Profile
which considers the singularities of LoRaWAN, Sigfox and NB-IoT,
while providing general F/R modes that work over all of these
technologies simultaneously.
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
3.2. Use Cases
The SCHC over All profile has several use cases:
* Generic SCHC F/R Profile for implementation of SCHC to test over a
new technology. SCHC out-of-the-box F/R modes.
* Multi-radio devices: Devices implementing more than one LPWAN
radio.
* Multi-network applications: Applications deployed over more than
one LPWAN.
* Network Redundancy:
- Devices using another LPWAN as backup,
- devices sending the same SCHC Fragment in different networks to
increase the probability of successful fragmented packet
reception.
* Increased device duty-cycle as more networks are available, e.g.,
if SCHC Packet transmission is not possible over LoRaWAN due to
duty-cycle restriction, SCHC Packet transmission may be performed
over Sigfox or NB-IoT. This applies also for SCHC Fragments.
* Devices sending SCHC Fragments over different LPWANs to check
available coverage.
4. SCHC over All Profile
4.1. SCHC over All Architecture
[RFC8376] overviews the LoRaWAN, Sigfox, and NB-IoT protocols and
their network architectures. More specifically, [RFC9011] maps the
network architecture entities between LoRaWAN and LPWAN, as described
in [RFC8724]. Similarly, [I-D.lpwan-schc-over-sigfox] and
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-nbiot] for Sigfox and NB-IoT performs the same
mapping for Sigfox and NB-IoT, respectively.
Figure 1 shows the architecture when using several SCHC F/R
implementations, one for each LPWAN technology. In this case, it is
possible to send SCHC Packets over different LPWAN networks.
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
() () () | |
() () () () / \/ \ +---------+ +---------+
() () () () () / / \ \====| Network |===|SCHC over|===
() () () () | Gateway | | NB-IoT | ||
() () () () () | (NB-IoT)| +---------+ ||
() () () () +---------+ ||
() () () () || +-----------+
() () () | | || |Application|
() () () () / \/ \ +---------+ +---------+ || +-----------+
() () () () () / / \ \====| Network |===|SCHC over|====| SCHC C/D |
() () () () | Core | | Sigfox | || +-----------+
() () () () () | (Sigfox)| +---------+ ||
() () () () +---------+ ||
() () () () ||
() () () | | +---------+ +---------+ ||
() () () () / \/ \ | Network | |SCHC over| ||
() () () () / / \ \====| Server |===| LoRaWAN |===
() () () () |(LoRaWAN)| +---------+
() () () () +---------+
End devices Radio Gateways Network Server SCHC C/D and F/R
(devices) (RGW) (NGW)
Figure 1: Architecture when using several SCHC F/R implementations
Figure 2 presents the SCHC over All architecture, with a single SCHC
C/D and F/R sublayer. This architecture provides a single
implementation of the SCHC F/R sublayer.
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
() () () | |
() () () () / \/ \ +---------+
() () () () () / / \ \====| Network |==========
() () () () | Gateway | ||
() () () () () | (NB-IoT)| ||
() () () () +---------+ ||
() () () () () +---------+
() () () | | |SCHC C/D |
() () () () / \/ \ +---------+ |---------| +-----------+
() () () () () / / \ \====| Network |===|SCHC over|==|Application|
() () () () | Core | | All | +-----------+
() () () () () | (Sigfox)| +---------+
() () () () +---------+ ||
() () () () ||
() () () | | ||
() () () () / \/ \ +---------+ ||
() () () () () / / \ \====| Network |==========
() () () () | Server |
() () () () () |(LoRaWAN)|
() () () () +---------+
End devices Radio Gateways Network Server SCHC C/D and F/R
(devices) (RGW) (NGW) Server
Figure 2: SCHC over All architecture
In the SCHC over All Profile, as devices have a single SCHC F/R
implementation, F/R RuleIDs are the same, independently of the LPWAN
technology used, reducing the device memory and complexity
requirements when compared to multiple SCHC F/R implementation.
4.2. Single SCHC ID
To simplify the access to RuleIDs and to converge the different
device IDs provided by the networks involved, a device needs to have
a new identifier called the single SCHC ID.
A device ID translation table maps the network device ID to single
SCHC ID. Then, with the single Device ID, it is possible to look up
the Rules set and identify the corresponding Rules for such device.
This dissociates the network device ID form the Rules, allowing to
use the same Rule set for the same device independently of the access
network.
The network device IDs used by the LPWAN technologies included in
this Profile are:
* LoRaWAN: DevID
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
* Sigfox: DeviceID
* NB-IoT: IMEI
Figure 3 presents a diagram of the SCHC over All architecture
including the Single SCHC device ID translation table.
+-----------+
| Table |==========
| Device ID | ||
|translation| ||
+-----------+ ||
+---------+
|SCHC C/D |
+---------+ +-----------+
(from All LPWANs) ===|SCHC over|==|Application|
| All | +-----------+
+---------+
Figure 3: Single SCHC device ID translation table diagram
4.3. Uplink Fragmentation
ACK-on-Error mode is RECOMMENDED for the transmission of Uplink SCHC
Packets that require fragmentation and need to be sent reliably.
ACK-on-Error mode is optimal, since it leads to a reduced number of
ACKs in the lower capacity Downlink channel as Downlink messages can
be sent asynchronously and opportunistically. Moreover, ACK-on-Error
mode supports variable MTU (which is critical for changing from one
LPWAN technology to another when sending SCHC Fragments spread across
different LPWANs), and out-of-order delivery (in case SCHC Fragments
are received out-of-order at the SCHC F/R receiver).
SCHC over LoRaWAN [RFC9011], SCHC over Sigfox
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-sigfox] and SCHC over NB-IoT
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-nbiot] provide uplink fragmentation SCHC
profiles. At the SCHC Fragment level, these profiles are not
compatible with one another. However, one of the SCHC over Sigfox
uplink fragmentation modes (Two-bytes Option 2) has several
similarities with the ACK-on-Error SCHC over LoRaWAN profile. Such
similarities include:
* 2-byte SCHC Fragmentation Header size.
* 10-byte tile size.
* 2-byte Rule ID size.
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
* No DTag
Differences between the SCHC over LoRaWAN and SCHC over Sigfox (Two-
byte Option 2) uplink fragmentation profiles include:
* WINDOW_SIZE (tiles per window).
* M size (maximum number of windows).
* N size (tiles per window).
* Different RCS size and algoritm.
SCHC over LoRaWAN ACK-on-Error includes a WINDOW_SIZE of 64 tiles.
This allows feedback from receiver to sender with larger ACKs.
Larger ACKs provide better performance in error-prone environments.
On the other hand, SCHC over Sigfox leverages the Compound ACK with a
WINDOW_SIZE of 32, allowing more downlink opportunities, and enabling
larger ACKs, notifying more than one window, in error-prone
environments and smaller ACKs, notifying one window.
Therefore, the SCHC over All Profile uses smaller WINDOW_SIZE values
than the ones proposed in SCHC over LoRaWAN [RFC9011], as it uses the
Compound ACK to accomplish larger ACK size, while still having the
option of smaller ACKs and more downlink opportunities.
In error-prone environments, larger ACKs pool more fragment error in
a single ACK, reducing the total number of ACKs, compared to the
increase in ACK size. Smaller ACKs performed better when error are
scatter, as ACKs will be small and less frequent.
4.3.1. Uplink ACK-on-Error Mode: Two-byte SCHC Header
In order to take advance of the similarities of the different LPWAN
profiles, the SCHC Uplink Fragmentation Header size is RECOMMENDED to
have a size of 16 bits and be composed as follows:
* Rule ID size is: 8 bits
* DTag size (T) is: 0 bits
* Window index (W) size (M): 3 bits
* Fragment Compressed Number (FCN) size (N): 5 bits.
* MAX_ACK_REQUESTS: 5
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
* WINDOW_SIZE: 31 (with a maximum value of FCN=0b1011)
* Regular tile size: 10 bytes
* All-1 tile size: 1 to 10 bytes
* Retransmission Timer: Application-dependent. The RECOMMENDED
value is 12 hours.
* Inactivity Timer: Application-dependent. The RECOMMENDED value is
12 hours.
* RCS size: 32 bits
4.3.2. Downlink Consideration in Uplink Fragmentation
When fragmentation is performed in the Uplink, the Compound ACK
allows to optimally manage receiver acknowledgements, as the number
of windows and the moment the Compound ACK is transferred can be
freely selected, e.g., depending on network conditions or capacity.
This advantage, compared with [RFC8724] and [RFC9011], benefits
smaller windows sizes, as smaller windows sizes provide more downlink
opportunities than a larger windows for the same number of tiles.
4.4. Rule Management
The RuleID MUST be 8 bits. In LoRaWAN it MUST be encoded in the
LoRaWAN FPort.
4.5. SCHC over All F/R Message Formats
This section depicts the different formats of SCHC Fragment, SCHC ACK
(including the SCHC Compound ACK defined in
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack]), SCHC Aborts and ACK Request used
in SCHC over All Uplink ACK-on-Error mode.
4.5.1. Regular SCHC Fragment
Figure 4 shows an example of a regular SCHC fragment for all
fragments except the last one. The penultimate tile of a SCHC Packet
is of the regular size.
+ ------ + -------------------------- +
| RuleID | W | FCN | Payload |
+ ------ + ------ + ------ + -------- +
| 8 bits | 3 bits | 5 bits | Variable |
Figure 4: Regular SCHC Fragment
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
4.5.2. All-1 SCHC Fragment
+ ------ + ---------------------------- +
| RuleID | W | FCN=All-1 | RCS |
+ ------ + ------ + --------- + ------- +
| 8 bits | 3 bits | 5 bits | 32 bits |
Figure 5: All-1 SCHC Fragment (no tile)
+ ------ + ---------------------------------------------------------- +
| RuleID | W | FCN=All-1 | RCS | Last tile | Opt. padding |
+ ------ + ------ + --------- + ------- + ------------ + ------------ +
| 8 bits | 3 bits | 5 bits | 32 bits | 1 to X bits | 0 to 7 bits
Figure 6: All-1 SCHC Fragment (with tile)
4.5.3. SCHC ACK Format
+ ------ + --------------------------+
| RuleID | W | C = 1 | padding |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- + --------- +
| 8 bits | 3 bit | 1 bit | X bits |
Figure 7: Successful SCHC ACK
| FPort | LoRaWAN payload |
+ ------ + --------------------------------- + ---------------- +
| RuleID | W | C = 0 | Compressed bitmap | Optional padding |
| | | | (C = 0) | (b'0...0) |
+ ------ + ----- + ----- + ----------------- + ---------------- +
| 8 bits | 2 bit | 1 bit | 5 to 63 bits | 0, 6 or 7 bits |
|-- SCHC ACK Header --|- W=w1 -|...|---- W=wi -----|
+------+------+-------+--------+...+------+--------+------+-------+
|RuleID|W=b'w1| C=b'0 | Bitmap |...|W=b'wi| Bitmap | 000 |b'0-pad|
+------+------+-------+--------+...+------+--------+------+-------+
|8 bits|3 bits| 1 bit | 31 bits|...|3 bits| 31 bits|3 bits|
Losses are found in windows W = w1,...,wi; where w1<w2<...<wi
Figure 8: Failure SCHC ACK
4.5.4. SCHC Receiver-Abort Message
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
|-- Receiver-Abort Header -|
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| RuleID | W=b'111 | C=b'1 | b'1111 | 0xFF (all 1's) | b'0-pad |
+--------+---------+-------+--------+-----------------+---------+
| 8 bits | 3 bits | 1 bit | 4 bit | 8 bit | X bits |
next L2 Word boundary ->| <-- L2 Word --> |
Figure 9: SCHC Receiver-Abort
4.5.5. SCHC Sender-Abort Messages
|---- Sender-Abort Header ----|
+-----------------------------+
| RuleID | W | FCN=ALL-1 |
+--------+--------+-----------+
| 8 bits | 3 bits | 5 bits |
Figure 10: SCHC Sender-Abort
4.5.6. SCHC ACK Request
|------- ACK Request Header -------|
+------- +------------------------ +
| RuleID | W | FCN = b'00000 |
+ ------ + ------ + -------------- +
| 8 bits | 3 bits | 5 bits |
Figure 11: SCHC ACK Request
5. Acknowledgements
Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government
through the TEC2016-79988-P grant, and the PID2019-106808RA-I00 grant
(funded by MCIN / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033), and by Secretaria
d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i Coneixement de
la Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 through grant SGR 376.
Sergio Aguilar has been funded by the ERDF and the Spanish Government
through project TEC2016-79988-P and project PID2019-106808RA-I00,
AEI/FEDER, EU (funded by MCIN / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033).
6. Normative References
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack]
Zuniga, JC., Gomez, C., Aguilar, S., Toutain, L.,
Cespedes, S., and D. Wistuba, "SCHC Compound ACK", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-
ack-07, October 2022, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack-07.txt>.
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-nbiot]
Ramos, E. and A. Minaburo, "SCHC over NBIoT", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-
nbiot-12, October 2022, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12.txt>.
[I-D.lpwan-schc-over-sigfox]
Zuniga, JC., Gomez, C., Aguilar, S., Toutain, L.,
Cespedes, S., Wistuba, D., and J. Boite, "SCHC over Sigfox
LPWAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lpwan-schc-over-sigfox-13, October 2022,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lpwan-
schc-over-sigfox-13.txt>.
[RFC8376] Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376>.
[RFC8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>.
[RFC9011] Gimenez, O., Ed. and I. Petrov, Ed., "Static Context
Header Compression and Fragmentation (SCHC) over LoRaWAN",
RFC 9011, DOI 10.17487/RFC9011, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9011>.
Authors' Addresses
Sergio Aguilar
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
08860 Castelldefels
Spain
Email: sergio.aguilar.romero@upc.edu
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCHC Convergence October 2022
Carles Gomez
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
08860 Castelldefels
Spain
Email: carles.gomez@upc.edu
Rafael Vidal
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
08860 Castelldefels
Spain
Email: rafael.vidal@upc.edu
Aguilar, et al. Expires 26 April 2023 [Page 13]
