Subject: [RSN] Update

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:02:45 -0400

Dear all,

Here is an update on where we stand: good progress !

1) We've been having quite a bit of off-line and on-line discussions  
and there is apparently a good level of interest in this work.
There are currently 5 IDs in the works:
* The generic routing requirements: draft-culler-rsn-routing-reqs
* Two application-specific routing requirements:
	- Home Networking
	- Industrial
* A problem statement
* An ID on routing metrics

Of course, if you're interested to work on these IDs or other items,  
feel free !

2) New name
Although we called this initiative RSN: Routing for Sensor Networks,  
it does apply more generally to constrained nodes (Low Power)
operating in Lossy Networks. Objects in general would typically be  
part of those networks. So from now on, let's rename this work
R2LN: "Routing issues for Low Power, Lossy Networks", and use that  
acronym in all IDs.

3) Next IETF
We asked for a presentation slot for the next IETF. Depending on the  
feedback, the next step would then to request a BOF in Vancouver.

Thanks.

JP and David.

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:31:49 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

> From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
> Date: June 3, 2007 8:02:45 AM EDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [RSN] Update
>
> Dear all,
>
> 1) We've been having quite a bit of off-line and on-line  
> discussions and there is apparently a good level of interest in  
> this work.
> Of course, if you're interested to work on these IDs or other  
> items, feel free !
>
> 2) New name
> Although we called this initiative RSN: Routing for Sensor  
> Networks, it does apply more generally to constrained nodes (Low  
> Power)
> R2LN: "Routing issues for Low Power, Lossy Networks",

It should actually read RL2N: "Routing issues for Low power, Lossy  
Networks"

Thanks.

JP.

> and use that acronym in all IDs.
>
> 3) Next IETF
> We asked for a presentation slot for the next IETF. Depending on  
> the feedback, the next step would then to request a BOF in Vancouver.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and David.
>

---

From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:50:14 -0500

JP Vasseur wrote:
> 2) New name
> Although we called this initiative RSN: Routing for Sensor Networks, it 
> does apply more generally to constrained nodes (Low Power)
> operating in Lossy Networks. Objects in general would typically be part 
> of those networks. So from now on, let's rename this work

I suggest that "Routing Issues in Low-Power Wireless Networks"
might be more descriptive.

"Wireless" implies "lossy".  "Wireless" also implies a variety
of other behaviors, such as a limited-range broadcast (usually),
and a variety of others.

I doubt that we will spend any time at all thinking about
low power wired networks.

"Low-Power" sounds better than "Resource-Constrained", although
the latter might be more descriptive.

And finally, to do the job well, this group must look at more
than just routing issues (e.g., neighbor discovery and management
in low-power wireless networks).  We might consider:

   "Internetworking Issues in Low-Power Wireless Networks"

or

   "Internetworking Issues in Resource-Constrained Wireless Networks"

or even

   "Internetworking Issues in Resource-Constrained Networks" (I2RCN)

One (non-trivial) advantage of "Internetworking" is that it
helps answer the question: Why should the IETF (e.g., rather than
the IEEE) be interested in this work?  (Assuming that we think
about how low-power wireless networks should be interconnected
with the Internet.)

-tjs

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:16:41 +0200

> in low-power wireless networks).  We might consider:
This part should be part of the 6lowpan recharter. The idea amongst the 
ADs has been to split off the routing portion of the work on low-power 
networks to the routing area, and continue forward with work on ND, 
bootstrapping, etc. within the int-area.
> about how low-power wireless networks should be interconnected
I agree that this is an important topic that should be part of both 
charters.

- Mark

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 18:06:26 -0400

Hi,

On Jun 3, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:

>>> operating in Lossy Networks. Objects in general would typically  
>>> be part of those networks. So from now on, let's rename this work
>>> R2LN: "Routing issues for Low Power, Lossy Networks", and use  
>>> that acronym in all IDs.
>>
> This part should be part of the 6lowpan recharter. The idea amongst  
> the ADs has been to split off the routing portion of the work on  
> low-power networks to the routing area, and continue forward with  
> work on ND, bootstrapping, etc. within the int-area.

Indeed ... By the way this gives the opportunity to re-enforce the  
fact that this initiative deals with routing issues *only*.
If we need additional specifications for the routing that do not deal  
with pure routing issues, then we need to ask to 6lowpan indeed.

>> about how low-power wireless networks should be interconnected

Because I think that these devices will soon be part of the  
Internet ;-) Quite seriously.
And we need to keep the word Routing here.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:23:28 +0300

Hi,

I would like to contribute to the Industrial application-specific ID.

- Zach

JP Vasseur wrote:
> 1) We've been having quite a bit of off-line and on-line discussions and 
> there is apparently a good level of interest in this work.

-- 
Zach Shelby | Managing Director | +358 40 7796297
Sensinode Ltd.   www.sensinode.com

---

From: Anthony Schoofs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:06:04 +0200

We did some work to schedule a coordinate switching on and off of sensor 
nodes in order to reduce at maximum the energy consumption of the network.
We came up with a routing protocol that allows us to route data throughout 
 the network according to the ON/OFF state of the nodes.

We would like to provide input for an ID on routing schemes that have 
energy consumption as the first focus.

Best regards,
Anthony.

--
Anthony Schoofs
Philips Research
High Tech Campus 37 , 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Email: [email-masked]

JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> 
03-06-2007 14:02

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
[RSN] Update
Classification

Dear all,

2) New name

3) Next IETF

Thanks.

JP and David.

---

From: "dculler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:36:46 -0700

I think the simplification to "Routing Issues for Low Power Wireless
Networks" is very good.  It defines the scope implicitly in a number of
useful ways. 
* There are a whole class of these devices where no routing is involved
(game controllers, remote controls, wireless keyboard and mouse, ear
pieces).
* It includes portions of sensor networks, embedded networks, automation,
but it not specifically limited to that.
* It includes 802.15.4 and links in a similar class.
* The technical challenges (loss, variation, multihop) are implied.
* It allows for both light footprint (microcontroller) and more capable
hosts.

So now we just need to tweak it to get a good acronym, since RILPWM doesn't
exactly role off the tongue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Timothy J. Salo
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RSN] Update

Timothy J. Salo wrote:
> "Wireless" implies "lossy".  "Wireless" also implies a variety of 
> other behaviors, such as a limited-range broadcast (usually), and a 
> variety of others.
>
> I doubt that we will spend any time at all thinking about low power 
> wired networks.
>
> "Low-Power" sounds better than "Resource-Constrained", although the 
> latter might be more descriptive.
>
> And finally, to do the job well, this group must look at more than 
> just routing issues (e.g., neighbor discovery and management in 
> low-power wireless networks).  We might consider:
This part should be part of the 6lowpan recharter. The idea amongst the ADs
has been to split off the routing portion of the work on low-power networks
to the routing area, and continue forward with work on ND, bootstrapping,
etc. within the int-area.
> One (non-trivial) advantage of "Internetworking" is that it helps 
> answer the question: Why should the IETF (e.g., rather than the IEEE) 
> be interested in this work?  (Assuming that we think about how 
> low-power wireless networks should be interconnected with the 
> Internet.)

- Mark

---

From: Traian MUNTEAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:13:09 +0200

Hi,

I have not yet contributed to the discussion but David's last comments
seem to me quite correct.

I would also insist on the dynamic "adaptiveness" of such networks and
associated routing issues, and this not only because this would
simplify "the role off the tongue"! (could provide an acronym like
RIALPoWN which could be by extension read: "real pawn"!! ...yet
tedious!)

Best,

Traian

dculler wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Timothy J. Salo
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RSN] Update

Timothy J. Salo wrote:

JP Vasseur wrote:

2) New name

or

or even

- Mark

-tjs

---

From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:02:38 -0500

> bootstrapping, etc. within the int-area.

I strongly recommend that serious consideration be given to creating a
single working group that is responsible for both the routing and the
non-routing aspects of low-power wireless networks.  While it is
important to apply the IETF's routing expertise to these issues,
I believe that, in this arena, there is also a need for close
coordination between the routing solutions and the non-routing
solutions.

o  I believe that the IETF's low-power wireless network activity
    (both the routing and the non-routing portions) will
    benefit from (perhaps even require) outside experts and expertise.
    (i.e., people who don't traditionally attend IETF working group
    meetings).  I also believe that it will be much easier for these
    people to attend working group meetings if there is a single
    working group, rather than two.  Yes, we could have two working
    groups and promise that they will always meet on the same day.
    But, given the complexities of scheduling working group meetings,
    it seems much easier and much more reliable to simply have a
    single working group.  Groups I would like to see attend include:

    - Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) Research Commmunity - The WSN
      research community has considerable domain expertise that would
      benefit the IETF.  Furthermore, this community is developing
      routing protocols adapted to the unique needs of WSNs that are
      radically different than anything the IETF is thinking about
      (e.g., protocols that propagate _only_ a default route, and
      enable nodes to route packets to _only_ to an exit router or to
      immediately adjacent nodes; and protocols that enable at least
      some nodes to sleep most of the time).

    - Home Automation and Industrial Automation Vendors - These groups
      have strong ideas about their requirements and have developed
      some initial solutions.

    - Standards Bodies and Industry Consortiums - It is possible that
      some of these groups (e.g., ZigBee Alliance, IEEE etc.) might
      choose to send some representatives.

o I believe that low-power wireless networks are, in many respects,
   radically different than the networks with which the IETF has
   experience.  As a result, both those working on the routing and
   the non-routing aspects of this problem will need to collectively
   develop a detailed understanding of the of the unique characteristics
   of these environments.  Some of these unique characteristics have
   strong implications for the routing solutions (e.g., some nodes may
   sleep much of the time; some nodes may be severely energy-constrained,
   while other nodes may be mains-powered; nodes may have [at least in
   academic discussions] thousands of neighbors]).  It would be useful
   for the routing and non-routing participants to develop this domain
   expertise jointly, rather than have after-the-fact discussions of the
   form: But, you didn't tell us about _that_ requirement...

o Finally, I believe that there must be much closer collaboration
   between the routing and the non-routing solutions than is common
   in the IETF.  For example, some proposed WSN routing protocols
   assume that clocks are reasonably well synchronized (no, they
   don't run NTP).  Some system-level design issues should be
   decided in close coordination with the routing protocol design,
   such as:

   - Should some nodes, such as power-rich or gateway nodes, act as
     proxies (for some functions) for power constrained node?

   - Should a link/subnet use both MAC addresses and network-addresses,
     or should only a single set of addresses be used for both purposes?

   - Should full IP (particularly IPv6) addresses _ever_ be transmitted
     over a low-power wireless link (except to request translation to
     a short, link-local address)?

Having said all that, I do think that it is important for a single
(or maybe "joint") low-power wireless networking working group to
be associated with both the Internet Area and the Routing Area.
Perhaps, it is possible for this working group to be associated
with, and have oversight from, both Areas.

Thoughts on whether this new working group should result from a
rechartering of the 6lowpan working group, or whether a fresh
start would be beneficial, is the topic of some future
pontification^H^H^H^H^H^H e-mail.

More unsolicited opinions from,

-tjs

---

From: "Anders Brandt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:19:49 +0200

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy J. Salo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 5. juni 2007 05:03

> (e.g., some nodes may sleep much of the time;

...

>  Should some nodes, such as power-rich or gateway nodes, act as

...

Operating nodes running on small batteries in very low bandwidth
environments
is at the heart of this initiative.

While awareness of sleeping nodes and the use of certain nodes as
proxies
is very much inside the scope of this group, I am a bit uncertain
whether
header and/or data compression is relevant on the routing layer.
It might be specific to the individual L2 implementations?

Concerning the proxy node topic, there are (at least) two situations to
consider:

A: Certain transmission mechanisms are asymmetrical, so that sending to
a 99% sleeping
requires a transmission activity from the sending part than from the
node waking up a
short while to detect traffic. This case may be considered a
_POWER_PROXY_.
Latency for the node response may not be higher than a few 100
milliseconds.

B: Water sensing nodes and other nodes may wake up extremely rarely, say
every 5 minutes.
They send a measurement report to a local proxy, that confirms the
receival.
Then the node goes back to sleep for the next 5 minutes.
The only way to change settings, e.g. the measument interval or the
target proxy
for such a node, is to provide a mailbox service, where instructions are
queued up,
waiting for the next time, the node makes contact.
We could call this a _TIME_PROXY_.

Anders Brandt

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:58:53 -0400

On Jun 6, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Anders Brandt wrote:

> is very much inside the scope of this group,

Absolutely.

> I am a bit uncertain

Header compression is clearly handled by 6lowpan. As far as data  
compression/fusion/..., if the technique and potential protocol
extensions are within the scope of 6lowpan, the knowledge of some  
node capabilities may be used to route the traffic and are
consequently part of RL2N. Again, a simple line of demarcation.

JP.

---

From: Anthony Schoofs <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:21:05 +0200

JP, I agree when you said in a previous email: 

> "the proposal is to design a IP routing solution 
> specifically for sensor networks, that would of course be independent 
> to the L1/L2 protocol in use (it may be desirable to take into account 
> link layer attributes when calculating a route but the routing process 
> would not be tied up with the link layer). 

In addition, our routing scheme should know when the PAN 
coordinator/Gateway location has changed to lower and balance the network 
energy consumption.
Then new timezones can be assigned and data routed accordingly.

I am looking forward to seeing this new WG formed,
Best regards,
Anthony.

--
Anthony Schoofs
Philips Research WY 7-038
High Tech Campus 37 , 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Email: [email-masked]

Anthony Schoofs 
04-06-2007 12:06

To
Re: [RSN] Update
Classification

Best regards, 
Anthony. 

To
[email-masked] 
cc

Subject
[RSN] Update 
Classification

Dear all,

2) New name

3) Next IETF

Thanks.

JP and David.

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:57:41 -0600

I would like to reiterate that I think that the work RSN group has
suggested taking on is very important to my working group - 6lowpan.

Our working group is looking to recharter and the scope of the work will
be focused on issues related to interoperability for 6lowpan networks.
This include things like MIC identifiers, alternative mesh headers,
security, ...

What is not in the scope is routing.  I think the RSN concept is
important in that the devices we are anticipating have significant
constraints (power, memory, processing) and as such the current set of
protocols and development is probably not appropriate for these types of
devices.

	geoff

---

From: "Dominik Kaspar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:17:11 +0900

Geoff,

As far as I know, there has not been any consensus yet to what is in
the scope of 6lowpan and what is not. But concering the RSN/R2LN
efforts, it would be favorable to find consensus as soon as possible,
so that it's clear where to dedicate new work to.

Dominik

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:10:36 -0700

> exactly role off the tongue.

How about

RLANE

Routing in Lossy low power Ad-hoc wireless NEtworks.

Phil