Internet DRAFT - draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management
draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management
Network Working Group B. Liu, Ed.
Internet-Draft Y. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: March 30, 2019 September 26, 2018
ANI Applied in IoT Network Management
draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management-01
Abstract
This document describes an IoT scenario where ACP and GRASP is
suitable to act as a network management channel and a lightweight and
extensible network management protocol. Relevent GRASP extention and
options are also specified to fulfill the requirements of the
scenario.
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 March 30, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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.
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Scenario Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Why Choose GRASP as Management Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Candidate Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. IETF Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.2. OMA LWM2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Suitability of GRASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. GRASP Extention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. GRASP over UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Reliable Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Fragmentation Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IoT Management Options Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. IoT Management Signallings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Lightweight ACP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
When Anima ANI [I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model] was designed, IoT
scenarios were under consideration. For example, one big reason of
introducing CBOR encoding [RFC7049] in GRASP [I-D.ietf-anima-grasp]
and choosing CoAP [RFC7252] for secure bootstrapping
[I-D.ietf-anima-grasp] is for the effiecency of transporting packets
over lossy IoT networks.
This document discusses applying GRASP and ACP into a specific IoT
scenario for some network management functions. The characterstics
of the scenario is:
o Low-power wireless field area network dedicated for industrial
usage (e.g. 6LoWPAN-based electronic metering network).
o The topology is mesh. It is natrual for a wireless local network.
o IPv6 addressing, which is beneficial for auto-configuration
o L3 routing is enabled (e.g. RPL).
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
o Nodes are extremelly resource constraind. (E.g., one typical
hardware model only has 128Kbytes RAM and 512Kbytes ROM. )
o Gateway is normally a resource rich device, which acts as a
management server to the nodes.
o Normally nodes don't need to communicate with any other entities
beyond the gateway.
However, some of the ANI designs are not specifically optimized for
IoT scenarios:
o Most of the GRASP messages (except M_Discovery and M_Flood) are
over TCP, which is considered as a heavy burden on radio resources
for many IoT LLNs.
o Since GRASP is based on TCP, it lacks reliable transport and
fragmentation mechanisms by itself.
o VRF-based ACP is not applicapable for most of the small IoT
devices.
This document discusses choosing GRASP as the management protocol
over the other two candicates, which are IETF Core technologies and
OMA LWM2M technologies. And also discusses a potential lightweight
ACP.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in
ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual
English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119]key
words.
This document use the key words defined in [RFC7575] .
The following additional terms are used throughout this document:
o
o IoT: Internet of Things
o BR: Bord Router
o CMD: Command
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
o ACK: Acknowledgement
o PLC: Power Line Communication
o LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network
o RF: Radio Frequency
o TCP: Transport Controll Protocol
o RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
[RFC6550] .
3. Scenario Description
/--\
| | /--\
/--\ \--/ | |
| | \--/
\--/ /--\
/--\
+--------+ | | \--/
| | \--/
|Border | /--\ /--\
|Router | | | IoT Nodes | |
|(Gatewa | /--\ \--/ \--/
|y) | | | /--\ /--\
+--------+ \--/ | | | |
\--/ \--/
/--\
/--\ | |
| | \--/
\--/
Fig 1. Reference Scenario for Wireless Field Area IoT Networks
As Fig 1 depicted, the BR is the root of the wireless network and act
as a management server. Each node connects to the BR.
4. Why Choose GRASP as Management Protocol
4.1. Candidate Technologies
4.1.1. IETF Core
Some IoT network management standardization work has been initialed
in the IETF Core working group. [I-D.ietf-core-comi] describes a
network management interface for constrained devices and networks,
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
called CoAP Management Interface (CoMI), which is used to access data
resources specified in YANG, or SMIv2 converted to YANG; relevant
YANG library for CoMI server [I-D.veillette-core-yang-library] and
CBOR encoding of data modeled with YANG [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor] are
also defined. In a nutshell, these work items can be considered as
some adaption and optimization of Netconf/YANG technologies for IoT
environment.
Netconf/YANG mechanisms are capabal of manuplating data orgnized in a
sophisticated tree structure. These capabilities are necessary and
poweful in managing various device configurations, especially for the
sophisticated devices such as router. However, they might be too
heavy for an extremly resource constrained device as discribed above.
There is neither enough space for storing the programs in ROM, nor
running the codes in RAM.
4.1.2. OMA LWM2M
OMA had issued the LWM2M specification, which is also designed for
IoT network management. LWM2M also chooses CoAP as the management
protocol, but it doesn't choose YANG for data model, rather, it
defined some OMA Objects.
OMA objects less complete than YANG modeled data; the objects are
flat rather than being orgnized as a tree structure. But OMA objects
contain also some advanced features such as access control of each
object. Plus the CoAP implementation, the LWM2M solution is still
not ideal for the targeted scenarios in terms of ROM/RAM ocuppation.
4.2. Suitability of GRASP
According to Section 6.1 , most of the IoT commands are more like
"Signallings" rather than traditional "Configurations". It is
reasonable because the IoT nodes need to auto-configure themselves as
much as possible to gain maximum effiecency. Relying on a
centralized server configuring each node is a big challenge to the
lossy wireless links and might probably cause significant delay of
deployment.
Thus, we might need a different approach to consider IoT management
than just simply re-using Netconf/YANG in a different context (e.g.
CoAP).
5. GRASP Extention
This section discusses potential GRASP extention to fulfill the IoT
management requirements.
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
5.1. GRASP over UDP
Since TCP requires three times handshake, which would consume too
much radio resource, thus it is not acceptable in LLNs. Then UDP is
needed.
5.2. Reliable Transport
For some critical messages, the sender would need to confirm the
receiver had got the message, thus, there needs to be a reliable
transport mechanism extended in application layer (GRASP).
5.3. Fragmentation Handling
Since the lack of TCP, GRASP also needs to be enhanced with some a
fragmentation mechanism.
6. IoT Management Options Definition
6.1. IoT Management Signallings
This section describes a set of IoT network management commands.
These commands are based on a real commercial implementation,
however, they are general network management functions that not
coupled with any specific services. Thus, these command could be
considered as a representative of the general requirements of similar
scenarios.
1. NETWORK_HEARTBEAT
a. BR sends heartbeat to node, every node relay to forward, ACK is
optional.
b. node can send the ACK if needed.
2. NETWORK_DISMISS
a. CMD from BR to Node: No Options are associated with this CMD.
This CMD will be sent in broadcast mode.
3. NODE_REMOVE
a. CMD from BR to Node: the destination IPv6 address will identify
the target node to be removed.
b. ACK from Node to BR.
4. NODE_LEFT_REPORT
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
a. Parent node sends a command to BR that a node connected to it has
left.
b. BR sends ACK to the parent node.
5. NETWORK_PARA_CONFIG
a. CMD from BR to Node. BR send RF config to every node, based on
broadcast relay, ACK is optional.
6. NODE_STATUS
a. Request.
b. Response.
7. NODE_STATISTICS
a. Request.
b. Response.
8. NODE_LOG
a. Request.
b. Response.
9. NODE_RESET
a. first response then reset, when node received this message.
(Editor's Note: More commands to be extended.)
6.2. GRASP Options
We propose to define three Options as the following. Each of the
above mentioned IoT management signallings could be fit into one of
the three options as different elements.
- IoT Node Status Reporting. (Details TBD.)
- Management Commands to IoT Nodes. (Details TBD.)
- IoT Network/Node Configuration. (Details TBD.)
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
7. Lightweight ACP
TBD.
8. Security
TBD.
9. IANA Considerations
TBD.
10. Acknowledgements
Some technical design work was contributed by Shoushou Ren. Relative
implementation experence was shared by Zongxin Dou, Wanhong Wang and
Haiyan Mao.
Valuable comments were received from Delei Yu, Sheng Jiang and Chuang
Wang.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-anima-grasp]
Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., and B. Liu, "A Generic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", draft-ietf-anima-
grasp-15 (work in progress), July 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic
Control Plane (ACP)", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-
plane-18 (work in progress), August 2018.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,
S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
keyinfra-16 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]
Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
and J. Nobre, "A Reference Model for Autonomic
Networking", draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-07 (work in
progress), August 2018.
[I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Stok, P., Pelov, A., and A. Bierman, "CoAP
Management Interface", draft-ietf-core-comi-03 (work in
progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-core-sid]
Veillette, M. and A. Pelov, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier
(SID)", draft-ietf-core-sid-04 (work in progress), June
2018.
[I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor]
Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Somaraju, A., Turner, R., and A.
Minaburo, "CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-07 (work in progress), September
2018.
[I-D.veillette-core-yang-library]
Veillette, M., "Constrained YANG Module Library", draft-
veillette-core-yang-library-03 (work in progress),
September 2018.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-rfmesh-anima-iot-management September 2018
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Authors' Addresses
Bing Liu (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Q14, Huawei Campus
No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
Yuefeng Wu
Huawei Technologies
N8, Huawei Campus
No. 101 Ruanjian Road
Yu-Hua-Tai District, Nanjing 210000
P.R. China
Email: wuyuefeng@huawei.com
Liu & Wu Expires March 30, 2019 [Page 10]
