draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-06.txt   draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07.txt 
Networking Working Group P. Levis Networking Working Group P. Levis
Internet-Draft Stanford University Internet-Draft Stanford University
Intended status: Informational A. Tavakoli Intended status: Informational A. Tavakoli
Expires: August 18, 2009 S. Dawson-Haggerty Expires: October 17, 2009 S. Dawson-Haggerty
UC Berkeley UC Berkeley
Feb 14, 2009 Apr 15, 2009
Overview of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks Overview of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks
draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-06 draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document.
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
Low-power wireless devices, such as sensors, actuators and smart Low-power wireless devices, such as sensors, actuators and smart
objects, present difficult constraints: very limited memory, little objects, present difficult constraints: very limited memory, little
processing power, and long sleep periods. As most of these devices processing power, and long sleep periods. As most of these devices
are battery-powered, energy efficiency is critically important. are battery-powered, energy efficiency is critically important.
Wireless link qualities can vary significantly over time, requiring Wireless link qualities can vary significantly over time, requiring
protocols to make agile decisions yet minimize topology change energy protocols to make agile decisions yet minimize topology change energy
costs. Routing over such low power and lossy networks introduces costs. Routing over such low power and lossy networks introduces
skipping to change at page 14, line 27 skipping to change at page 14, line 27
protocols. The table below shows, based on the criteria described protocols. The table below shows, based on the criteria described
above, whether these protocols meet ROLL criteria. Appendix A above, whether these protocols meet ROLL criteria. Appendix A
contains the reasoning behind each value in the table. contains the reasoning behind each value in the table.
Protocol State Loss Control Link Cost Node Cost Protocol State Loss Control Link Cost Node Cost
OSPF/IS-IS fail fail fail pass fail OSPF/IS-IS fail fail fail pass fail
OLSRv2 fail ? ? pass pass OLSRv2 fail ? ? pass pass
TBRPF fail pass fail pass ? TBRPF fail pass fail pass ?
RIP pass fail pass ? fail RIP pass fail pass ? fail
AODV pass fail pass fail fail AODV pass fail pass fail fail
DYMO pass ? pass ? fail DYMO pass ? pass ? ?
DSR fail pass pass fail fail DSR fail pass pass fail fail
Figure 1 Figure 1
6. Link State Protocols 6. Link State Protocols
6.1. OSPF & IS-IS 6.1. OSPF & IS-IS
OSPF (specified in [RFC2328] for IPv4 and in [RFC2740] for IPv6)) is OSPF (specified in [RFC2328] for IPv4 and in [RFC2740] for IPv6)) is
a link state protocol designed for routing within an Internet a link state protocol designed for routing within an Internet
skipping to change at page 21, line 32 skipping to change at page 21, line 32
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. September 2007.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol [RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007. Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider [RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326, Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,
September 2008. September 2008.
[chakeres.transparent]
Chakeres, I. and E. Belding-Royer, "Transparent Influence
of Path Selection in Heterogeneous Ad hoc Networks",
Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) ,
September 2004.
Appendix A. Routing protocol scalability analysis Appendix A. Routing protocol scalability analysis
This aim of this Appendix is to provide the details for the analysis This aim of this Appendix is to provide the details for the analysis
routing scalability analysis. routing scalability analysis.
"OSPF & IS-IS" "OSPF & IS-IS"
OSPF floods link state through a network. Each router must receive OSPF floods link state through a network. Each router must receive
this complete link set. OSPF fails the routing state criterion this complete link set. OSPF fails the routing state criterion
because it requires each router to discover each link in the network, because it requires each router to discover each link in the network,
skipping to change at page 25, line 4 skipping to change at page 25, line 13
requirements on how nodes respond to route error RERR messages that requirements on how nodes respond to route error RERR messages that
denote a broken route. Therefore, while it is possible for a DYMO denote a broken route. Therefore, while it is possible for a DYMO
implementation to meet the loss response criterion, the specification implementation to meet the loss response criterion, the specification
is not clear on how to meet the criterion while still maintaining is not clear on how to meet the criterion while still maintaining
routes as link breaks . This leads to a ? in loss repsonse routes as link breaks . This leads to a ? in loss repsonse
[I-D.ietf-manet-dymo]. [I-D.ietf-manet-dymo].
DYMO indicates that the "distance" of a link can vary from 1-65535 DYMO indicates that the "distance" of a link can vary from 1-65535
[I-D.ietf-manet-dymo], leading to a ? in link cost. While additional [I-D.ietf-manet-dymo], leading to a ? in link cost. While additional
routing information can be added DYMO messages, there is no mention routing information can be added DYMO messages, there is no mention
of node properties, leading to a fail in node cost. of node properties. There is great uncertainty whether DYMO can
support them. While there are no direct mechanisms in DYMO that can
meet this criterion, some research results suggest that indirect
mechanisms, such as packet timing, could [chakeres.transparent].
Therefore, supporting node cost would require additional mechanisms
or specifications, leading to a ? on the node cost criterion.
"DSR" "DSR"
DSR performs on-demand route discovery, and source routing of DSR performs on-demand route discovery, and source routing of
packets. It maintains a source route for all destinations, and also packets. It maintains a source route for all destinations, and also
a blacklist of all unidirectional neighbor links [RFC4728], leading a blacklist of all unidirectional neighbor links [RFC4728], leading
to a total table size of O(D + L), failing the routing state to a total table size of O(D + L), failing the routing state
criterion. Control traffic is completely data driven, and so DSR criterion. Control traffic is completely data driven, and so DSR
receives a pass for this criterion. Finally, a transmission failure receives a pass for this criterion. Finally, a transmission failure
only prompts an unreachable destination to be sent to the source of only prompts an unreachable destination to be sent to the source of
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 22 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/