draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05.txt   rfc9034.txt 
6lo Lijo Thomas Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Thomas
Internet-Draft C-DAC Request for Comments: 9034 C-DAC
Intended status: Standards Track S. Anamalamudi Category: Standards Track S. Anamalamudi
Expires: January 9, 2020 SRM University-AP ISSN: 2070-1721 SRM University-AP
S.V.R.Anand S.V.R. Anand
Malati Hegde M. Hegde
Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science
C. Perkins C. Perkins
Futurewei Lupin Lodge
July 8, 2019 June 2021
Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header Packet Delivery Deadline Time in the Routing Header for IPv6 over
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05 Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a new type for the 6LoWPAN routing header This document specifies a new type for the 6LoWPAN routing header
containing the deadline time for data packets, designed for use over containing the deadline time for data packets, designed for use over
constrained networks. The deadline time enables forwarding and constrained networks. The deadline time enables forwarding and
scheduling decisions for time critical IoT machine to machine (M2M) scheduling decisions for time-critical machine-to-machine (M2M)
applications that operate within time-synchronized networks that applications running on Internet-enabled devices that operate within
agree on the meaning of the time representations used for the time-synchronized networks. This document also specifies a
deadline time values. representation for the deadline time values in such networks.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9034.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
3. 6LoRHE Generic Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. 6LoRHE Generic Format
4. Deadline-6LoRHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Deadline-6LoRHE
5. Deadline-6LoRHE Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Deadline-6LoRHE Format
6. Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios
6.1. Scenario 1: Endpoints in the same DODAG (N1) . . . . . . 9 6.1. Scenario 1: Endpoints in the Same DODAG (N1)
6.2. Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2 6.2. Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2
Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Technologies
6.3. Scenario 3: Packet transmission across different DODAGs 6.3. Scenario 3: Packet Transmission across Different DODAGs (N1
(N1 to N2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 to N2)
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. IANA Considerations
8. Synchronization Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Synchronization Aspects
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Security Considerations
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. References
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.1. Normative References
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.2. Informative References
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A. Modular Arithmetic Considerations
Appendix A. Changes from revision 04 to revision 05 . . . . . . 18 Acknowledgments
Appendix B. Changes from revision 03 to revision 04 . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses
Appendix C. Changes from revision 02 to revision 03 . . . . . . 19
Appendix D. Changes from revision 01 to revision 02 . . . . . . 19
Appendix E. Changes between earlier versions . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are likely to be deployed for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are likely to be deployed for
real time industrial applications requiring end-to-end delay real-time industrial applications requiring end-to-end delay
guarantees [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]. A Deterministic Network guarantees [RFC8578]. A Deterministic Network ("DetNet") typically
("detnet") typically requires some data packets to reach their requires some data packets to reach their receivers within strict
receivers within strict time bounds. Intermediate nodes use the time bounds. Intermediate nodes use the deadline information to make
deadline information to make appropriate packet forwarding and appropriate packet forwarding and scheduling decisions to meet the
scheduling decisions to meet the time bounds. time bounds.
This document specifies a new type for the Elective 6LoWPAN Routing This document specifies a new type for the Elective 6LoWPAN Routing
Header (6LoRHE), so that the deadline time (i.e., the time of latest Header (6LoRHE), Deadline-6LoRHE, so that the deadline time (i.e.,
acceptable delivery) of data packets can be included within the the time of latest acceptable delivery) of data packets can be
6LoWPAN routing header. [RFC8138] specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing included within the 6LoRHE. [RFC8138] specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing
Header (6LoRH), compression schemes for RPL routing (source routing) Header (6LoRH), compression schemes for RPL (Routing Protocol for
operation [RFC6554], header compression of RPL Packet Information Low-Power and Lossy Networks) source routing [RFC6554], header
[RFC6553], and IP-in-IP encapsulation. This document also specifies compression of RPL packet information [RFC6553], and IP-in-IP
handling of the deadline time when packets traverse between time- encapsulation. This document also specifies the handling of the
synchronized networks operating in different timezones or distinct deadline time when packets traverse time-synchronized networks
reference clocks. Time synchronization techniques are outside the operating in different time zones or distinct reference clocks.
scope of this document. There are a number of standards available Time-synchronization techniques are outside the scope of this
for this purpose, including IEEE 1588 [ieee-1588], IEEE 802.1AS document. There are a number of standards available for this
[dot1AS-2011], IEEE 802.15.4-2015 TSCH [dot15-tsch], and more. purpose, including IEEE 1588 [IEEE.1588.2008], IEEE 802.1AS
[IEEE.802.1AS.2011], IEEE 802.15.4-2015 Time-Slotted Channel Hopping
(TSCH) [IEEE.802.15.4], and more.
The Deadline-6LoRHE can be used in any time synchronized 6Lo network. The Deadline-6LoRHE can be used in any time-synchronized 6LoWPAN
A 6TiSCH network is used to describe the implementation of the network. A 6TiSCH (IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4) network
Deadline-6LoRHE, but this does not preclude its use in scenarios is used to describe the implementation of the Deadline-6LoRHE, but
other than 6TiSCH. For instance, there is a growing interest in this does not preclude its use in scenarios other than 6TiSCH. For
using 6lo over a BLE mesh network [I-D.ietf-6lo-blemesh] in instance, there is a growing interest in using 6LoWPAN over a
industrial IoT [dotBLEMesh]. BLE mesh time synchronization is being Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh network [6LO-BLEMESH] in industrial
explored by the Bluetooth community. There are also cases under IoT (Internet of Things) [IEEE-BLE-MESH]. BLE mesh time
consideration in Wi-SUN [Wi-SUN_PHY], [dotWi-SUN]. synchronization is being explored by the Bluetooth community. There
are also cases under consideration in Wi-SUN [PHY-SPEC] [Wi-SUN].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] [RFC8174]. BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC6550] and This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC6550] and
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]. [RFC9030].
3. 6LoRHE Generic Format 3. 6LoRHE Generic Format
Note: this section is not normative and is included for convenience. Note: this section is not normative and is included for convenience.
The generic header format of the 6LoRHE is specified in The generic header format of the 6LoRHE is specified in [RFC8138].
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch]. Figure 1 illustrates the 6LoRHE Figure 1 illustrates the 6LoRHE generic format.
generic format.
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... -+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... -+
|1|0|1| Length | Type | Options | |1|0|1| Length | Type | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... -+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ... -+
<--- length ---> <--- length --->
Figure 1: 6LoRHE format Figure 1: 6LoRHE Format
o Length: Length of the 6LoRHE expressed in bytes, excluding the Length: Length of the 6LoRHE expressed in bytes, excluding the first
first 2 bytes. This enables a node to skip a 6LoRHE if the Type 2 bytes. This enables a node to skip a 6LoRHE if the Type is not
is not recognized/supported. recognized or supported.
o Type (variable length): Type of the 6LoRHE (see Section 7) Type (variable length): Type of the 6LoRHE (see Section 7).
4. Deadline-6LoRHE 4. Deadline-6LoRHE
The Deadline-6LoRHE (see Figure 3) is an elective 6LoRH (i.e., a The Deadline-6LoRHE (see Figure 3) is a 6LoRHE [RFC8138] that
6LoRHE [RFC8138]) that provides the Deadline Time (DT) for an IPv6 provides the Deadline Time (DT) for an IPv6 datagram in a compressed
datagram in a compressed form. Along with the deadline, the header form. Along with the DT, the header can include the Origination Time
can include the packet Origination Time Delta (OTD), the time at Delta (OTD) packet, which contains the time when the packet was
which the packet is enqueued for transmission (expressed as a value enqueued for transmission (expressed as a value to be subtracted from
to be subtracted from DT); this enables a close estimate of the total DT); this enables a close estimate of the total delay incurred by a
delay incurred by a packet. The OTD field is initialized by the packet. The OTD field is initialized by the sender based on the
sender based on the current time at the outgoing network interface current time at the outgoing network interface through which the
through which the packet is forwarded. Since the OTD is a delta, the packet is forwarded. Since the OTD is a delta, the length of the OTD
length of the OTD field (i.e., OTL) will require fewer bits than the field (i.e., OTL) will require fewer bits than the length of the DT
length of the DT field (i.e., DTL). field (i.e., DTL).
The deadline field contains the value of the deadline time for the The DT field contains the value of the deadline time for the packet
packet -- in other words, the time by which the application expects -- in other words, the time by which the application expects the
the packet to be delivered to the Receiver. packet to be delivered to the receiver.
packet_deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay packet_deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay
In order to support delay-sensitive deterministic applications, all In order to support delay-sensitive, deterministic applications, all
nodes within the network should process the Deadline-6LoRHE. The nodes within the network should process the Deadline-6LoRHE. The DT
packet deadline time (DT) and origination time (OTD) are represented and OTD packets are represented in time units determined by a scaling
in time units determined by a scaling parameter in the routing parameter in the Routing Header. The Network ASN (Absolute Slot
header. The Network ASN (Absolute Slot Number) can be used as a time Number) can be used as a time unit in a time-slotted synchronized
unit in a time slotted synchronized network (for instance a 6TiSCH network (for instance, a 6TiSCH network, where global time is
network, where global time is maintained in the units of slot lengths maintained in the units of slot lengths of a certain resolution).
of a certain resolution).
The delay experienced by packets in the network is a useful metric The delay experienced by packets in the network is a useful metric
for network diagnostics and performance monitoring. Whenever a for network diagnostics and performance monitoring. Whenever a
packet crosses into a network using a different reference clock, the packet crosses into a network using a different reference clock, the
Destination Time field is updated to represent the same Destination DT field is updated to represent the same deadline time, but
Time, but expressed using the reference clock of the interface into expressed using the reference clock of the interface into the new
the new network. Then the origination time is the same as the network. Then the origination time is the same as the current time
current time when the packet is transmitted into the new network, when the packet is transmitted into the new network, minus the delay
minus the delay already experienced by the packet, say 'current_dly'. already experienced by the packet, say 'current_dly'. In this way,
In this way, within the newly entered network, the packet will appear within the newly entered network, the packet will appear to have
to have originated 'current_dly' time units earlier with respect to originated 'current_dly' time units earlier with respect to the
the reference clock of the new network. reference clock of the new network.
new_network_origin_time = time_now_in_new_network - current_dly
new_network_origin_time = time_now_in_new_network - current_dly
The following example illustrates these calculations when a packet The following example illustrates these calculations when a packet
travels between three networks, each in a different time zone. 'x' travels between three networks, each in a different time zone (TZ).
can be 1, 2 or 3. Suppose that the deadline time as measured in 'x' can be 1, 2, or 3. Suppose that the deadline time as measured in
timezone 1 is 1050 and the origination time is 50. Suppose that the TZ1 is 1050, and the origination time is 50. Suppose that the
difference between TZ2 and TZ1 is 900, and the difference between TZ3 difference between TZ2 and TZ1 is 900, and the difference between TZ2
and TZ3 is 3600. In the figure, OT is the origination time as and TZ3 is 3600. In the figure, OT is the origination time as
measured in the current timezone, and is equal to DT - OTD, that is, measured in the current time zone, and is equal to DT - OTD, that is,
DT - 1000. Figure 2 uses the following abbreviations: DT - 1000. Figure 2 uses the following abbreviations:
TxA : Time of arrival of packet in the network 'x' TxA: Time of arrival of packet in the network 'x'
TxD : Departure time of packet from the network 'x' TxD: Departure time of packet from the network 'x'
dlyx : Delay experienced by the packet in the previous network(s) dlyx: Delay experienced by the packet in the previous network(s)
TZx : The time zone of network 'x' TZx: The time zone of network 'x'
TZ1 TZ2 TZ3 TZ1 TZ2 TZ3
T1A=50| | | T1A=50| | |
|---- dly1=50 | | |---- dly1=50 | |
| \ | | | \ | |
| \ | | | \ | |
| \ T1D=100 |T2A=1000 | | \ T1D=100 |T2A=1000 |
| -------->|----- dly2=450 | | -------->|----- dly2=450 |
| | \ | | | \ |
| | \ | | | \ |
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at line 227
v v v v v v
dly0 = 0 dly1 = T1D-OT1 dly2 = T2D-OT2 dly0 = 0 dly1 = T1D-OT1 dly2 = T2D-OT2
= 100-50 = 1400 - 950 = 100-50 = 1400 - 950
= 50 = 450 = 50 = 450
OT1 = T1A-dly0 OT2 = T2A-dly1 OT3 = T3A-dly2 OT1 = T1A-dly0 OT2 = T2A-dly1 OT3 = T3A-dly2
= 50 = 1000-50 = 5000 - 450 = 50 = 1000-50 = 5000 - 450
= 950 = 4550 = 950 = 4550
Figure 2: Destination Time Update example Figure 2: Deadline Time Update Example
There are multiple ways that a packet can be delayed, including There are multiple ways that a packet can be delayed, including
queuing delay, MAC layer contention delay, serialization delay, and queuing delay, Media Access Control (MAC) layer contention delay,
propagation delays. Sometimes there are processing delays as well. serialization delay, and propagation delay. Sometimes there are
For the purpose of determining whether or not the deadline has processing delays as well. For the purpose of determining whether or
already passed, these various delays are not distinguished. not the deadline has already passed, these various delays are not
distinguished.
5. Deadline-6LoRHE Format 5. Deadline-6LoRHE Format
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0|1| Length | 6LoRH Type |D| TU| DTL | OTL | BinaryPt | |1|0|1| Length | 6LoRH Type |D| TU| DTL | OTL | BinaryPt |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DT (variable length) | OTD(variable length)(optional)| | DT (variable length) | OTD(variable length)(optional)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Deadline-6LoRHE format Figure 3: Deadline-6LoRHE Format
o Length (5 bits): Length represents the total length of the Length (5 bits): Length represents the total length of the Deadline-
Deadline-6LoRHE type measured in octets. 6LoRHE Type measured in octets.
o 6LoRH Type: TBD (see Section 7)
o D flag (1 bit): The 'D' flag, set by the Sender, qualifies the 6LoRH Type: 7 (See Section 7.)
action to be taken when a 6LR detects that the deadline time has
elapsed. If 'D' bit is 1, then the 6LR MUST drop the packet if D flag (1 bit): The 'D' flag, set by the sender, qualifies the
the deadline time is elapsed. If 'D' bit is 0, the packet MAY be action to be taken when a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) detects that the
forwarded on an exception basis, if the forwarding node is NOT in deadline time has elapsed.
a situation of constrained resource, and if there are reasons to
suspect that downstream nodes might find it useful (delay If 'D' bit is 1, then the 6LR MUST drop the packet if the deadline
measurements, interpolations, etc.). time is elapsed.
o TU (2 bits) : Indicates the time units for DT and OTD fields. The
If 'D' bit is 0, the packet MAY be forwarded on an exception
basis, if the forwarding node is NOT in a situation of constrained
resource, and if there are reasons to suspect that downstream
nodes might find it useful (delay measurements, interpolations,
etc.).
TU (2 bits): Indicates the time units for DT and OTD fields. The
encodings for the DT and OTD fields use the same time units and encodings for the DT and OTD fields use the same time units and
precision. precision.
* 00 : Time represented in seconds and fractional seconds 00 Time represented in seconds and fractional seconds
* 01 : Reserved 01 Reserved
* 10 : Network ASN 10 Network ASN
* 11 : Reserved 11 Reserved
o DTL (4 bits): Length of DT field as an unsigned 4-bit integer,
DTL (4 bits): Length of the DT field as an unsigned 4-bit integer,
encoding the length of the field in hex digits, minus one. encoding the length of the field in hex digits, minus one.
o OTL (3 bits) : Length of OTD field as an unsigned 3-bit integer,
OTL (3 bits): Length of the OTD field as an unsigned 3-bit integer,
encoding the length of the field in hex digits. If OTL == 0, the encoding the length of the field in hex digits. If OTL == 0, the
OTD field is not present. The value of OTL MUST NOT exceed the OTD field is not present. The value of OTL MUST NOT exceed the
value of DTL plus one. value of DTL plus one.
* For example, DTL = 0b0000 means the deadline time in the 6LoRHE For example, DTL = 0b0000 means the DT field in the 6LoRHE is 1
is 1 hex digit (4 bits) long. OTL = 0b111 means the hex digit (4 bits) long. OTL = 0b111 means the OTD field is 7 hex
origination time is 7 hex digits (28 bits) long. digits (28 bits) long.
o Binary Pt (6 bits) : If zero, the number of bits of the integer
part the DT is equal to the number of bits of the fractional part BinaryPt (6 bits): If zero, the number of bits of the integer part
of the DT. if nonzero, the Binary Pt is a signed integer the DT is equal to the number of bits of the fractional part of
determining the position of the binary point within the value for the DT. If nonzero, the BinaryPt is a (2's complement) signed
the DT. integer determining the position of the binary point within the
value for the DT. This allows BinaryPt to be within the range
[-32,31].
* If BinaryPt value is positive, then the number of bits for the * If BinaryPt value is positive, then the number of bits for the
integer part of the DT is increased by the value of BinaryPt, integer part of the DT is increased by the value of BinaryPt,
and the number of bits for the fractional part of the DT is and the number of bits for the fractional part of the DT is
correspondingly reduced. This increases the range of DT. correspondingly reduced. This increases the range of DT.
* If BinaryPt value is negative, then the number of bits for the * If BinaryPt value is negative, then the number of bits for the
integer part of the DT is decreased by the value of BinaryPt, integer part of the DT is decreased by the value of BinaryPt,
and the number of bits for the fractional part of the DT is and the number of bits for the fractional part of the DT is
correspondingly increased. This increases the precision of the correspondingly increased. This increases the precision of the
fractional seconds part of DT. fractional seconds part of DT.
o DT Value (8..64-bit) : An unsigned integer of DTL+1 hex digits
giving the Deadline Time value DT Value (4..64 bits): An unsigned integer of DTL+1 hex digits
o OTD Value (8..64-bit) : An unsigned integer of OTL hex digits giving the DT value.
giving the Origination Time as a negative offset from the DT value
OTD Value (4..28 bits): If present, an unsigned integer of OTL hex
digits giving the origination time as a negative offset from the
DT value.
Whenever a sender initiates the IP datagram, it includes the Whenever a sender initiates the IP datagram, it includes the
Deadline-6LoRHE along with other 6LoRH information. For information Deadline-6LoRHE along with other 6LoRH information. For information
about the time synchronization requirements between sender and about the time-synchronization requirements between sender and
receiver see Section 8. receiver, see Section 8.
For the chosen time unit, a compressed time representation is For the chosen time unit, a compressed time representation is
available as follows. First, the application on the originating node available as follows. First, the application on the originating node
has to determine how many time bits are needed to represent the determines how many time bits are needed to represent the difference
difference between the time at which the packet is launched and the between the time at which the packet is launched and the deadline
deadline time, including the representation of fractional time units. time, including the representation of fractional time units. That
That number of bits (say, N_bits) determines DTL (the length of the number of bits (say, N_bits) determines DTL as follows:
Deadline Time (DT)) as follows:
DTL = (N_bits mod 4) DTL = ((N_bits - 1) / 4)
The number of bits determined by DTL allows counting any number of The number of bits determined by DTL allows the counting of any
fractional time units in the range of interest determined by DT and number of fractional time units in the range of interest determined
the origination time OT. Denote this number of fractional time units by DT and the OT. Denote this number of fractional time units to be
to be Epoch_Range(DTL) (i.e., Epoch_Range is a function of DTL). Epoch_Range(DTL) (i.e., Epoch_Range is a function of DTL):
Epoch_Range(DTL) = (2^(4*(DTL+1)) Epoch_Range(DTL) = 2^(4*(DTL+1))
Each point of time between OT and DT is represented by a time unit Each point of time between OT and DT is represented by a time unit
and a fractional time unit; in this section, this combined and a fractional time unit; in this section, this combined
representation is called a rational time unit (RTU). 1 RTU measures representation is called a rational time unit (RTU). 1 RTU measures
the smallest fractional time that can be represented between two the smallest fractional time that can be represented between two
points of time in the epoch (i.e., within the range of interest). points of time in the epoch (i.e., within the range of interest).
DT - OT cannot exceed 2^(4*(DTL+1)) == 16^(DTL+1). A low value of DT - OT cannot exceed 2^(4*(DTL+1)) == 16^(DTL+1). A low value of
DTL leads to a small Epoch_Range; if DTL = 0, there will only be 16 DTL leads to a small Epoch_Range; if DTL = 0, there will only be 16
RTUs within the Epoch_Range (DTL) = 16^1 (for any time unit TU). The RTUs within the Epoch_Range (i.e., Epoch_Range(DTL) = 16^1) for any
values that can be represented in the current epoch are in the range TU. The values that can be represented in the current epoch are in
[0, (Epoch_Range(DTL) - 1)]. To minimize the required DTL, the range [0, (Epoch_Range(DTL) - 1)].
wraparound is allowed but works naturally with the arithmetic modulo
Epoch_Range.
By default, DTL determines t_0 in the chosen RTUs as follows: Assuming wraparound does not occur, OT is represented by the value
(OT mod Epoch_Range), and DT is represented by the value (DT mod
Epoch_Range). All arithmetic is to be performed modulo
(Epoch_Range(DTL)), yielding only positive values for DT - OT.
t_0 = [current_time - (current_time mod Epoch_Range (DTL))]. In order to allow fine-grained control over the setting of the
deadline time, the fields for DT and OTD use fractional seconds.
This is done by specifying a binary point, which allocates some of
the bits for fractional times. Thus, all such fractions are
restricted to be negative powers of 2. Each point of time between OT
and DT is then represented by a time unit (either seconds or ASNs)
and a fractional time unit.
Naturally, t_0 occurs at time 0 (or time 0.0000...) in the current Let OT_abs, DT_abs, and CT_abs denote the true (absolute) values (on
epoch. The last possible origination time representable in the the synchronized timelines) for OT, DT, and current time. Let N be
current epoch (counted in RTUs) is t_last = (t0 + (2^(4*(DTL+1))-1)). the number of bits to be used to represent the integer parts of
In the RTUs chosen, the current epoch resides at the underlying time OT_abs, DT_abs, and CT_abs:
interval [t_0, t_last]. If DT - OT is greater than t_last - OT, then
wraparound within the Epoch_Range occurs naturally. In all cases, OT
is represented by the value (OT mod Epoch_Range) and DT is
represented by the value (DT mod Epoch_Range). All arithmetic is to
be performed modulo (Epoch_Range(DTL)), yielding only positive values
for DT - OT.
Example: Consider a 6TiSCH network with time-slot length of 10ms. N = {4*(DTL+1)/2} + BinaryPt
The originating node has to pick a segment size (2^N) so that DT_abs
- OT_abs < 2^N, and so that intermediate network nodes can detect
whether or not CT_abs > DT_abs.
Given a value for N, the value for DT is represented in the deadline-
time format by DT = (DT_abs mod 2^N). DT is typically represented as
a positive value (even though negative modular values make sense).
Also, let OT = OT_abs mod 2^N and CT = CT_abs mod 2^N, where both OT
and CT are also considered as non-negative values.
When the packet is launched by the originating node, CT_abs == OT_abs
and CT == OT. Given a particular value for N, then in order for
downstream nodes to detect whether or not the deadline has expired
(i.e., whether DT_abs > CT_abs), the following is required:
Assumption 1: DT_abs - OT_abs < 2^N.
Otherwise the ambiguity inherent in the modulus arithmetic yielding
OT and DT will cause failure: one cannot measure time differences
greater than 2^N using numbers in a time segment of length less than
2^N.
Under Assumption 1, downstream nodes must effectively check whether
or not their current time is later than the DT -- but the value of
the DT has to be inferred from the value of DT in the 6LoRHE, which
is a number less than 2^N. This inference cannot be expected to
reliably succeed unless Assumption 1 is valid, which means that the
originating node has to be careful to pick proper values for DTL and
for BinaryPt.
Since OT is not necessarily provided in the 6loRHE, there may be a
danger of ambiguity. Surely, when DT = CT, the deadline time is
expiring and the packet should be dropped. However, what if an
intermediate node measures that CT = DT+1? Was the packet launched a
short time before arrival at the intermediate node, or has the
current time wrapped around so that CT_abs - OT_abs > 2^N?
In order to solve this problem, a safety margin has to be provided,
in addition to requiring that DT_abs - OT_abs < 2^N. The value of
this safety margin is proportional to 2^N and is determined by a new
parameter, called the "SAFETY_FACTOR". Then, for safety the
originating node MUST further ensure that (DT_abs - OT_abs) <
2^N*(1-SAFETY_FACTOR).
Each intermediate node that receives the packet with the Deadline-
6LoRHE must determine whether ((CT - DT) mod 2^N) >
SAFETY_FACTOR*2^N. If this test condition is not satisfied, the
deadline time has expired. See Appendix A for more explanation about
the test condition. All nodes that receive a packet with a Deadline-
6LoRHE included MUST use the same value for the SAFETY_FACTOR. The
SAFETY_FACTOR is to be chosen so that a packet with the Deadline-
6LoRHE included will be tested against the current time at least once
during every subinterval of length SAFETY_FACTOR*2^N. In this way,
it can be guaranteed that the packet will be tested often enough to
make sure it can be dropped whenever CT_abs > DT_abs. The value of
SAFETY_FACTOR is specified in this document to be 20%.
Example: Consider a 6TiSCH network with time-slot length of 10 ms.
Let the time units be ASNs (TU == (binary)0b10). Let the current Let the time units be ASNs (TU == (binary)0b10). Let the current
ASN when the packet is originated be 54400, and the maximum ASN when the packet is originated be 54400, and the maximum
allowable delay (max_delay) for the packet delivery be 1 second allowable delay (max_delay) for the packet delivery be 1 second
from the packet origination, then: from the packet origination, then:
deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay deadline_time = packet_origination_time + max_delay
= 0xD480 + 0x64 (Network ASNs) = 0xD480 + 0x64 (Network ASNs)
= 0xD4E4 (Network ASNs) = 0xD4E4 (Network ASNs)
Then, the Deadline-6LoRHE encoding with nonzero OTL is: Then, the Deadline-6LoRHE encoding with nonzero OTL is:
DTL = 3, OTL = 2, TU = 0b10, BinaryPt = 8, DT = 0xD4E4, OTD DTL = 3, OTL = 2, TU = 0b10, BinaryPt = 8, DT = 0xD4E4,
= 0x64 OTD = 0x64
6. Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios 6. Deadline-6LoRHE in Three Network Scenarios
In this section, Deadline-6LoRHE operation is described for 3 network In this section, the Deadline-6LoRHE operation is described for three
scenarios. Figure 4 depicts a constrained time-synchronized LLN that network scenarios. Figure 4 depicts a constrained time-synchronized
has two subnets N1 and N2, connected through LBRs LLN that has two subnets, N1 and N2, connected through 6LoWPAN Border
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] with different reference clock times Routers (6LBRs) [RFC8929] with different reference clock times, T1
T1 and T2. and T2.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| Time Synchronized | | Time-Synchronized |
| Network | | Network |
+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------------+--------------+ +--------------+--------------+
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone
o | | router | | router o | | router | | router
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o LLN o o LLN o o o LLN o o LLN o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
6LoWPAN Network (subnet N1) 6LoWPAN Network (subnet N2) 6LoWPAN Network (subnet N1) 6LoWPAN Network (subnet N2)
Figure 4: Intra-network Timezone Scenario Figure 4: Intra-Network Time Zone Scenario
6.1. Scenario 1: Endpoints in the same DODAG (N1) 6.1. Scenario 1: Endpoints in the Same DODAG (N1)
In scenario 1, shown in Figure 5, the Sender 'S' has an IP datagram In Scenario 1, shown in Figure 5, the Sender 'S' has an IP datagram
to be routed to a Receiver 'R' within the same DODAG. For the route to be routed to a Receiver 'R' within the same Destination-Oriented
segment from Sender to 6LBR, the Sender includes a Deadline-6LoRHE by Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG). For the route segment from the
encoding the deadline time contained in the packet. Subsequently, sender to the 6LBR, the sender includes a Deadline-6LoRHE by encoding
each 6LR will perform hop-by-hop routing to forward the packet the deadline time contained in the packet. Subsequently, each 6LR
towards the 6LBR. Once 6LBR receives the IP datagram, it sends the will perform hop-by-hop routing to forward the packet towards the
packet downstream towards 'R'. 6LBR. Once the 6LBR receives the IP datagram, it sends the packet
downstream towards 'R'.
In case of a network running RPL non-storing mode, the 6LBR generates In the case of a network running in RPL non-storing mode, the 6LBR
a IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulated packet when sending the packet downwards generates an IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulated packet when sending the packet
to the Receiver [I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo]. The 6LBR copies the downwards to the receiver [RFC9008]. The 6LBR copies the Deadline-
Deadline-6LoRHE from the Sender originated IP header to the outer IP 6LoRHE from the sender-originated IP header to the outer IP header.
header. The Deadline-6LoRHE contained in the inner IP header is The Deadline-6LoRHE contained in the inner IP header is removed.
removed.
+-------+ +-------+
^ | 6LBR | | ^ | 6LBR | |
| | | | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
Upward | / /| \ | Downward Upward | / /| \ | Downward
routing | (F) / | \ | routing routing | (F) / | \ | routing
| / \ (C) | (D) | | / \ (C) | (D) |
| / \ | | / |\ | | / \ | | / |\ |
| (A) (B) : (E) : R | | (A) (B) : (E) : R |
| /|\ | \ / \ | | /|\ | \ / \ |
| S : : : : : : v | S : : : : : : v
Figure 5: End points within same DODAG (subnet N1) Figure 5: Endpoints within the Same DODAG (Subnet N1)
At the tunnel endpoint of the encapsulation, the Deadline-6LoRHE is At the tunnel endpoint of the encapsulation, the Deadline-6LoRHE is
copied back from the outer header to inner header, and the inner IP copied back from the outer header to inner header, and the inner IP
packet is delivered to 'R'. packet is delivered to 'R'.
6.2. Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2 Technologies. 6.2. Scenario 2: Endpoints in Networks with Dissimilar L2 Technologies
In scenario 2, shown in Figure 6, the Sender 'S' (belonging to DODAG In Scenario 2, shown in Figure 6, the Sender 'S' (belonging to DODAG
1) has IP datagram to be routed to a Receiver 'R' over a time- 1) has an IP datagram to be routed to a Receiver 'R' over a time-
synchronized IPv6 network. For the route segment from 'S' to 6LBR, synchronized IPv6 network. For the route segment from 'S' to 6LBR,
'S' includes a Deadline-6LoRHE. Subsequently, each 6LR will perform 'S' includes a Deadline-6LoRHE. Subsequently, each 6LR will perform
hop-by-hop routing to forward the packet towards the 6LBR. Once the hop-by-hop routing to forward the packet towards the 6LBR. Once the
Deadline Time information reaches the border router, the packet will deadline time information reaches the 6LBR, the packet will be
be encoded according to the mechanism prescribed in the other time- encoded according to the mechanism prescribed in the other time-
synchronized network depicted as "Time Synchronized Network" in the synchronized network depicted as "Time-Synchronized Network" in
figure 6. The specific data encapsulation mechanisms followed in the Figure 6. The specific data encapsulation mechanisms followed in the
new network are beyond the scope of this document. new network are beyond the scope of this document.
+----------------+ +----------------+
| Time | | Time- |
| Synchronized |------R | Synchronized |------R
| Network | | Network |
+----------------+ +----------------+
| |
| |
----------+----------- ----------+-----------
^ | ^ |
| +---+---+ | +---+---+
| | 6LBR | | | 6LBR |
Upward | | | Upward | | |
routing | +------++ routing | +------++
| (F)/ /| \ | (F)/ /| \
| / \ / | \ | / \ / | \
| / \ (C) | (D) | / \ (C) | (D)
| (A) (B) | | / |\ | (A) (B) | | / |\
| /|\ |\ : (E) : : | /|\ |\ : (E) : :
| S : : : : / \ | S : : : : / \
: : : :
Figure 6: Packet transmission in Dissimilar L2 Technologies or Figure 6: Packet Transmission in Dissimilar L2 Technologies or
Internet Internet
For instance, the IP datagram could be routed to another time For instance, the IP datagram could be routed to another time-
synchronized deterministic network using the mechanism specified in synchronized, deterministic network using the mechanism specified in
the In-band OAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], and then the deadline time In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)
would be updated according to the measurement of the current time in [IOAM-DATA], and then the deadline time would be updated according to
the new network. the measurement of the current time in the new network.
6.3. Scenario 3: Packet transmission across different DODAGs (N1 to 6.3. Scenario 3: Packet Transmission across Different DODAGs (N1 to N2)
N2).
Consider the scenario depicted in Figure 7, in which the Sender 'S' Consider the scenario depicted in Figure 7, in which the Sender 'S'
(belonging to DODAG 1) has an IP datagram to be sent to Receiver 'R' (belonging to DODAG 1) has an IP datagram to be sent to Receiver 'R'
belonging to another DODAG (DODAG 2). The operation of this scenario belonging to another DODAG (DODAG 2). The operation of this scenario
can be decomposed into combination of case 1 and case 2 scenarios. can be decomposed into a combination of Scenarios 1 and 2. For the
For the route segment from 'S' to 6LBR1, 'S' includes the Deadline- route segment from 'S' to 6LBR1, 'S' includes the Deadline-6LoRHE.
6LoRHE. Subsequently, each 6LR will perform hop-by-hop operation to Subsequently, each 6LR will perform hop-by-hop operations to forward
forward the packet towards the 6LBR1. Once the IP datagram reaches the packet towards 6LBR1. Once the IP datagram reaches 6LBR1 of
6LBR1 of DODAG1, it applies the same rule as described in Case 2 DODAG1, 6LBR1 applies the same rule as described in Scenario 2 while
while routing the packet to 6LBR2 over a (likely) time synchronized routing the packet to 6LBR2 over a (likely) time-synchronized wired
wired backhaul. The wired side of 6LBR2 can be mapped to receiver of backhaul. The wired side of 6LBR2 can be mapped to the receiver of
Case 2. Once the packet reaches 6LBR2, it updates the Deadline- Scenario 2. Once the packet reaches 6LBR2, it updates the Deadline-
6LoRHE by adding or subtracting the difference of time of DODAG2 and 6LoRHE by adding or subtracting the difference of time of DODAG2 and
sends the packet downstream towards 'R'. sends the packet downstream towards 'R'.
Time Synchronized Network Time-Synchronized Network
-+---------------------------+- -+---------------------------+-
| | | |
DODAG1 +---+---+ +---+---+ DODAG2 DODAG1 +---+---+ +---+---+ DODAG2
| 6LBR1 | | 6LBR2 | | 6LBR1 | | 6LBR2 |
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
(F)/ /| \ (F)/ /| \ (F)/ /| \ (F)/ /| \
/ \ / | \ / \ / | \ / \ / | \ / \ / | \
/ \ (C) | (D) / \ (C) | (D) / \ (C) | (D) / \ (C) | (D)
(A) (B) | | / |\ (A) (B) | | |\ (A) (B) | | / |\ (A) (B) | | |\
/|\ |\ : (E) : : /|\ |\ : (E) : : /|\ |\ : (E) : : /|\ |\ : (E) : :
S : : : : / \ : : : : : / \ S : : : : / \ : : : : : / \
: : : R : : : R
Network N1, time zone T1 Network N2, time zone T2 Network N1, time zone T1 Network N2, time zone T2
Figure 7: Packet transmission in different DODAGs(N1 to N2) Figure 7: Packet Transmission in Different DODAGs (N1 to N2)
Consider an example of a 6TiSCH network in which S in DODAG1 Consider an example of a 6TiSCH network in which S in DODAG1
generates the packet at ASN 20000 to R in DODAG2. Let the maximum generates the packet at ASN 20000 to R in DODAG2. Let the maximum
allowable delay be 1 second. The time-slot length in DODAG1 and allowable delay be 1 second. The time-slot length in DODAG1 and
DODAG2 is assumed to be 10ms. Once the deadline time is encoded in DODAG2 is assumed to be 10 ms. Once the deadline time is encoded in
Deadline-6LoRHE, the packet is forwarded to 6LBR of DODAG1. Suppose Deadline-6LoRHE, the packet is forwarded to 6LBR1 of DODAG1. Suppose
the packet reaches 6LBR of DODAG1 at ASN 20030. the packet reaches 6LBR1 of DODAG1 at ASN 20030.
current_time = ASN at LBR * slot_length_value current_time = ASN at 6LBR * slot_length_value
remaining_time = deadline_time - current_time remaining_time = deadline_time - current_time
= ((packet_origination_time + max_delay) - current time)
= (20000 + 100) - 20030
= 30 (in Network ASNs)
= 30 * 10^3 milliseconds.
Once the Deadline Time information reaches the border router, the = ((packet_origination_time + max_delay) - current time)
packet will be encoded according to the mechanism prescribed in the
other time-synchronized network. = (20000 + 100) - 20030
= 30 (in Network ASNs)
= 30 * 10^3 milliseconds
Once the deadline time information reaches 6LBR2, the packet will be
encoded according to the mechanism prescribed in the other time-
synchronized network.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type, and This document defines a new Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type, and
IANA is requested to assign a value (TBD) from the 6LoWPAN Dispatch IANA has assigned the value 7 from the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1 number
Page1 number space for this purpose. space for this purpose.
Elective 6LoRH Type Value +=======+=================+===========+
+----------------------+--------+ | Value | Description | Reference |
| Deadline-6LoRHE | TBD | +=======+=================+===========+
+----------------------+--------+ | 7 | Deadline-6LoRHE | RFC 9034 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------+
Figure 8: Deadline-6LoRHE type Table 1: Entry in the "Elective
6LoWPAN Routing Header Type"
Registry
8. Synchronization Aspects 8. Synchronization Aspects
The document supports time representation of the deadline and The document supports time representation of the deadline and
origination times carried in the packets traversing through networks origination times carried in the packets traversing networks of
of different time zones having different time synchronization different time zones having different time-synchronization
mechanisms. For instance, in a 6TiSCH network where the time is mechanisms. For instance, in a 6TiSCH network where the time is
maintained as ASN time slots, the time synchronization is achieved maintained as ASN time slots, the time synchronization is achieved
through beaconing among the nodes as described in [RFC7554]. There through beaconing among the nodes as described in [RFC7554]. There
could be 6lo networks that employ NTP where the nodes are could be 6lo networks that employ NTP where the nodes are
synchronized with an external reference clock from an NTP server. synchronized with an external reference clock from an NTP server.
The specification of the time synchronization method that need to be The specification of the time-synchronization method that needs to be
followed by a network is beyond the scope of the document. followed by a network is beyond the scope of the document.
The number of hex digits chosen to represent DT, and the portion of The number of hex digits chosen to represent DT, and the portion of
that field allocated to represent integer number of seconds, that field allocated to represent the integer number of seconds,
determines the meaning of t_0, i.e., the meaning of DT == 0 in the determines the meaning of t_0, i.e., the meaning of DT == 0 in the
chosen representation. If DTL == 0, then there are only 4 bits that chosen representation. If DTL == 0, then there are only 4 bits that
can be used to count the time units, so that DT == 0 can never be can be used to count the time units, so that DT == 0 can never be
more than 16 time units (or fractional time units) in the past. This more than 16 time units (or fractional time units) in the past. This
then requires that the time synchronization between sender and then requires that the time synchronization between sender and
receiver has to be tighter than 16 units. If the binary point were receiver has to be tighter than 16 units. If the binary point were
moved so that all the bits were used for fractional time units (e.g., moved so that all the bits were used for fractional time units (e.g.,
fractional seconds or fractional ASNs), the time synchronization fractional seconds or fractional ASNs), the time-synchronization
requirement would be correspondingly tighter. requirement would be correspondingly tighter.
A 4-bit field for DT allows up to 16 hex digits, which is 64 bits. A 4-bit field for DT allows up to 16 hex digits, which is 64 bits.
That is enough to represent the NTP [RFC5905] 64-bit timestamp That is enough to represent the NTP 64-bit timestamp format
format, which is more than enough for the purposes of establishing [RFC5905], which is more than enough for the purposes of establishing
deadline times. Unless the binary point is moved, this is enough to deadline times. Unless the binary point is moved, this is enough to
represent time since year 1900. represent time since year 1900.
For example, suppose that DTL = 0b0000 and the DT bits are split For example, suppose that DTL = 0b0000 and the DT bits are split
evenly; then we can count up to 3.75 seconds by quarter-seconds. evenly; then we can count up to 3.75 seconds by quarter-seconds.
If DTL = 3 and the DT bits are again split evenly, then we can count If DTL = 3 and the DT bits are again split evenly, then we can count
up to 256 seconds (in steps of 1/256 of a second). up to 256 seconds (in steps of 1/256 of a second).
In all cases, t_0 is defined as specified in Section 5 In all cases, t_0 is defined as specified in Section 5.
t_0 = [current_time - (current_time mod (2^(4*(DTL+1))))] t_0 = [current_time - (current_time mod (2^(4*(DTL+1))))]
regardless of the choice of TU. regardless of the choice of TU.
For TU = 0b00, the time units are seconds. With DTL == 15, and For TU = 0b00, the time units are seconds. With DTL == 15, and
Binary Pt == 0, the epoch is (by default) January 1, 1900 at 00:00 BinaryPt == 0, the epoch is (by default) January 1, 1900, at 00:00
UTC. The resolution is then (2 ^ (- 32)) seconds, which is the UTC. The resolution is then 2^-32 seconds, which is the maximum
maximum possible. This time format wraps around every 2^32 seconds, possible. This time format wraps around every 2^32 seconds, which is
which is roughly 136 years. roughly 136 years.
For TU = 0b10, the time units are ASNs. The start time is relative, For TU = 0b10, the time units are ASNs. The start time is relative,
and updated by a mechanism out of scope for this document. With 10 and updated by a mechanism that is out of scope for this document.
ms slots, DTL = 15, and Binary Pt == 0, it would take over a year for With 10 ms slots, DTL = 15, and BinaryPt == 0, it would take over a
the ASN to wrap around. Typically, the number of hex digits year for the ASN to wrap around. Typically, the number of hex digits
allocated for TU = 0b10 would be less than 15. allocated for TU = 0b10 would be less than 15.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC4944], [RFC6282] and [RFC6553] The security considerations of [RFC4944] (Section 13), [RFC6282]
apply. Using a compressed format as opposed to the full in-line (Section 6), and [RFC6553] (Section 5) apply. Using a compressed
format is logically equivalent and does not create an opening for a format as opposed to the full inline format is logically equivalent
new threat when compared to [RFC6550], [RFC6553] and [RFC6554]. and does not create an opening for a new threat when compared to
[RFC6550], [RFC6553], and [RFC6554].
The protocol elements specified in this document are designed to work The protocol elements specified in this document are designed to work
in controlled operational environments (e.g., industrial process in controlled operational environments (e.g., industrial process
control and automation). In order to avoid misuse of the deadline control and automation). In order to avoid misuse of the deadline
information that could potentially result in a Denial of Service information that could potentially result in a Denial of Service
(DoS) attack, proper functioning of this deadline time mechanism (DoS) attack, proper functioning of this deadline time mechanism
requires the provisioning and management of network resources for requires the provisioning and management of network resources for
supporting traffic flows with deadlines, performance monitoring, and supporting traffic flows with deadlines, performance monitoring, and
admission control policy enforcement. The network provisioning can admission control policy enforcement. The network provisioning can
be done either centrally or in a distributed fashion. For example, be done either centrally or in a distributed fashion. For example,
tracks in a 6tisch network could be established by a centralized PCE, tracks in a 6TiSCH network could be established by a centralized Path
as described in the 6tisch architecture Computation Element (PCE), as described in the 6TiSCH architecture
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]. [RFC9030].
The Security Considerations of Detnet architecture The security considerations of DetNet architecture [RFC8655]
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] mostly apply to this document as well, (Section 5) mostly apply to this document as well, as follows. To
as follows. To secure the request and control of resources allocated secure the request and control of resources allocated for tracks,
for tracks, authentication and authorization can be used for each authentication and authorization can be used for each device and
device, and network controller devices. In the case of distributed network controller devices. In the case of distributed control
control protocols, security is expected to be provided by the protocols, security is expected to be provided by the security
security properties of the protocols in use. properties of the protocols in use.
When deadline bearing flows are identified on a per-flow basis, which The identification of deadline-bearing flows on a per-flow basis may
may provide attackers with additional information about the data provide attackers with additional information about the data flows
flows, when compared to networks that do not include per-flow compared to networks that do not include per-flow identification.
identification. The security implications of disclosing that The security implications of disclosing that additional information
additional information deserve consideration when implementing this deserve consideration when implementing this deadline specification.
deadline specification.
Because of the requirement of precise time synchronization, the Because of the requirement of precise time synchronization, the
accuracy, availability, and integrity of time synchronization is of accuracy, availability, and integrity of time synchronization is of
critical importance. Extensive discussion of this topic can be found critical importance. Extensive discussion of this topic can be found
in [RFC7384]. in [RFC7384].
10. Acknowledgements 10. References
The authors thank Pascal Thubert for suggesting the idea and
encouraging the work. Thanks to Shwetha Bhandari's suggestions which
were instrumental in extending the timing information to
heterogeneous networks. The authors acknowledge the 6TiSCH WG
members for their inputs on the mailing list. Special thanks to
Jerry Daniel, Dan Frost (Routing Directorate) Charlie Kaufman
(Security Directorate) Seema Kumar, Tal Mizrahi Avinash Mohan, Shalu
Rajendran, Anita Varghese, and Dale Worley (Gen-ART review) for their
support and valuable feedback.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]
Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T., and Q. Wang,
"Terms Used in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e",
draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-10 (work in progress), March
2018.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 10.1. Normative References
Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing-
dispatch-05 (work in progress), October 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at line 776
[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>. April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
[dot15-tsch] DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
"IEEE 802 Wireless", "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
Networks, Part 15.4, IEEE Std 802.15.4-2015", April 2016.
[dot1AS-2011]
"IEEE Standards", "IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks - Timing and Synchronization
for Time-Sensitive Applications in Bridged Local Area
Networks", March 2011.
[dotBLEMesh]
Leonardi, L., Pattim, G., and L. Lo Bello, "Multi-Hop
Real-Time Communications Over Bluetooth Low Energy
Industrial Wireless Mesh Networks", IEEE Access Vol 6,
26505-26519, May 2018.
[dotWi-SUN]
Harada, H., Mizutani, K., Fujiwara, J., Mochizuki, K.,
Obata, K., and R. Okumura, "IEEE 802.15.4g Based Wi-SUN
Communication Systems", IEICE Transactions on
Communications volume E100.B, Jan 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6
Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-11 (work
in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-blemesh]
Gomez, C., Darroudi, S., Savolainen, T., and M. Spoerk,
"IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy using IPSP",
draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-05 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-24 (work
in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]
Grossman, E., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-
ietf-detnet-use-cases-20 (work in progress), December
2018.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-06 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-roll-useofrplinfo]
Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPL
Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-
IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", draft-ietf-
roll-useofrplinfo-31 (work in progress), July 2019.
[ieee-1588]
"IEEE Standards", "IEEE Std 1588-2008 Standard for a
Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked
Measurement and Control Systems", July 2008.
[Wi-SUN_PHY] [RFC9030] Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time-
Wi-SUN Alliance, "Wi-SUN PHY Specification V1.0", March Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)",
2016. RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9030>.
Appendix A. Changes from revision 04 to revision 05 10.2. Informative References
This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time [6LO-BLEMESH]
revisions ...-04.txt and ...-05.txt. Gomez, C., Darroudi, S. M., Savolainen, T., and M. Spoerk,
"IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy using IPSP", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-10, 22
April 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-10>.
o Included additional relevant material in Security Considerations [IEEE-BLE-MESH]
regarding expected deployment scenarios and the effect of Leonardi, L., Patti, G., and L. Lo Bello, "Multi-Hop Real-
disclosing additional information during the travel of a packet. Time Communications Over Bluetooth Low Energy Industrial
Wireless Mesh Networks", IEEE Access, Vol 6, pp.
26505-26519, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2834479, May 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2834479>.
o Reworked the specification for using time ranges shorter than the [IEEE.1588.2008]
maximum allowed by the choice of TU, so that fewer bits are needed IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
to represent DT and OT. Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760, July 2008,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760>.
o Revised the figures and examples to use new parameters [IEEE.802.15.4]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", IEEE
Standard 802.15.4-2015, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7460875,
April 2016,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875>.
o Reordered the field definitions for the Deadline-6LoRHE. [IEEE.802.1AS.2011]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive
Applications in Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std
802.1AS-2011, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.5741898, March
2011, <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.5741898>.
o Responded to numerous reviewer comments to improve terminology and [IOAM-DATA]
editorial consistency. Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12, 21 February
2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-12>.
Appendix B. Changes from revision 03 to revision 04 [PHY-SPEC] Wi-SUN Alliance, "Wi-SUN PHY Specification V1.0", March
2016, <http://wi-sun.org>.
This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time [RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
revisions ...-03.txt and ...-04.txt. RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
o Replaced OT (Origination Time) field by OTD (Origination Time [RFC8929] Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli,
Delta), allowing a more compressed representation that needs less "IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10.17487/RFC8929,
processing during transitions between networks. November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8929>.
o Changed representation for DTL, OTL, DT, OTD. Eliminated EXP in [RFC9008] Robles, M.I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI
favor of BinaryPt. Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and IPv6-
in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", RFC 9008,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9008, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9008>.
o Revised the figures and examples to use new parameters [Wi-SUN] Harada, H., Mizutani, K., Fujiwara, J., Mochizuki, K.,
Obata, K., and R. Okumura, "IEEE 802.15.4g Based Wi-SUN
Communication Systems", IEICE Transactions on
Communications, Volume E100.B, Issue 7, pp. 1032-1043,
DOI 10.1587/transcom.2016SCI0002, January 2017,
<https://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.2016SCI0002>.
o Added new section on Synchronization Aspects to supply pertinent Appendix A. Modular Arithmetic Considerations
information about how nodes agree on the meaning of t=0.
o Responded to numerous reviewer comments to improve editorial Graphically, one might visualize the timeline as follows:
consistency and improve terminology.
Appendix C. Changes from revision 02 to revision 03 OT_abs CT_abs DT_abs
-------|-------------|-------------|------------------>
This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time Figure 8: Absolute Timeline Representation
revisions ...-02.txt and ...-03.txt.
o Added non-normative 6LoRHE description, citing RFC 8138. In Figure 8, the value of CT_abs is envisioned as traveling to the
right as time progresses, getting farther away from OT_abs and
getting closer to DT_abs. The timeline is considered to be
subdivided into time subintervals [i,j] starting and ending at
absolute times equal to k*(2^N), for integer values of k. Let I_k =
k*(2^N) and I_(k+1) = (k+1)*2^N. Intervals starting at I_k and
I_(k+1) may occur at various placements in the above timeline. Even
though OT_abs is _always_ less than DT_abs, it could be that DT < OT
because of the way that DT and OT are represented within the range
[0, 2^N) and similarly for CT_abs and CT compared to OT and DT.
o Specified that the Origination Time (OT) is the time that packet Representing the above situation in time segments of length 2^N (and
is enqueued for transmission. values OT, CT, DT) results in several cases where the deadline time
has not elapsed:
o Mentioned more sources of packet delay. 1) OT < CT < DT (e.g., I_k < OT_abs < CT_abs < DT_abs < I_(k+1) )
o Clarified reasons that packet MAY be forwarded if 'D' bit is 0. 2) DT < OT < CT (e.g., I_k < OT_abs < CT_abs < I_(k+1) < DT_abs )
o Clarified that DT, OT, DTL and OTL are unsigned integers. 3) CT < DT < OT (e.g., I_k < OT_abs < I_(k+1) < CT_abs < DT_abs )
o Updated bibliographic citations, including BLEmesh and Wi-SUN. In the following cases, the deadline time has elapsed and the packet
should be dropped.
Appendix D. Changes from revision 01 to revision 02 4) DT < CT < OT
This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time 5) OT < DT < CT
revisions ...-01.txt and ...-02.txt.
o Replaced 6LoRHE description by reference to RFC 8138. 6) CT < OT < DT
o Added figure to illustrate change to Origination Time when a Again in Figure 8, consider CT_abs as time moving away from OT_abs
packet crosses timezone boundaries. and towards DT_abs. For times CT_abs before the expiration of the
deadline time, we also have CT_abs - OT_abs == CT - OT mod 2^N and
similarly for DT_abs - CT_abs.
o Clarified that use of 6tisch networks is descriptive, not As time proceeds, DT_abs - CT_abs gets smaller. When the deadline
normative. time expires, DT_abs - CT_abs begins to grow negative. A proper
selection for SAFETY_FACTOR allows it to go _slightly negative_ but
for an intermediate point to _detect_ that it has gone negative.
Note that in modular arithmetic, "slightly negative" means _exactly_
the same as "almost as large as the modulus (i.e., 2^N)". Now
consider the test condition ((CT - DT) mod 2^N) > SAFETY_FACTOR*2^N.
o Clarified that In-Band OAM is used as an example and is not (DT_abs - OT_abs) < 2^N*(1-SAFETY_FACTOR) satisfies the test
normative. condition when CT_abs == OT_abs (i.e., when the packet is launched).
In modular arithmetic, 2^N*(1-SAFETY_FACTOR) == 2^N -
2^N*SAFETY_FACTOR == -2^N*(SAFETY_FACTOR). Then DT_abs - OT_abs <
-2^N*(1-SAFETY_FACTOR). Inverting the inequality, OT_abs - DT_abs >
2^N*(1-SAFETY_FACTOR), and thus at launch CT_abs - DT_abs >
2^N*(1-SAFETY_FACTOR).
o Updated bibliographic citations. As CT_abs grows larger, CT_abs - DT_abs gets LARGER in (non-negative)
modular arithmetic until the time at which CT_ABS == DT_ABS, and
suddenly CT_ABS - DT_abs becomes zero. Also suddenly, the test
condition is no longer fulfilled.
o Alphabetized contributor names. As CT_abs grows still larger, CT_abs > DT_abs, and we need to detect
this condition as soon as possible. Requiring the SAFETY_FACTOR
enables this detection until CT_abs exceeds DT_abs by an amount equal
to SAFETY_FACTOR*2^N.
Appendix E. Changes between earlier versions A note about "inverting the inequality". Observe that a < b implies
that -a > -b on the real number line. Also, (a - b) == -(b - a).
These facts hold also for modular arithmetic.
This section lists the changes between draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time During the times prior to the expiration of the deadline, for Safe =
revisions ...-00.txt and ...-01.txt. 2^N*SAFETY_FACTOR we have:
o Changed "SHOULD drop" to "MUST drop" a packet if the deadline is (DT_abs - 2^N) < OT_abs < CT_abs < DT_abs < DT_abs+Safe
passed (see Section 5).
o Added explanatory text about how packet delays might arise. (see Naturally, DT_abs - 2^N == DT_abs mod 2^N == DT.
Section 4).
o Mentioned availability of time-synchronization protocols (see Again considering Figure 8, it is easy to see that {CT_abs - (DT_abs
Section 1). - 2^N)} gets larger and larger until the time at which CT_abs =
DT_abs, which is the first time at which CT - DT == 0 mod 2^N. As
CT_abs increases past the deadline time, 0 < CT_abs - DT_abs < Safe.
In this range, any intermediate node can detect that the deadline has
expired. As CT_abs increases past DT_abs+Safe, it is no longer
possible for an intermediate node to determine with certainty whether
or not the deadline time has expired. These statements also apply
when reduced to modular arithmetic in the modulus 2^N.
o Updated bibliographic citations. In particular, the test condition no longer allows detection of
deadline expiration when the current time becomes later than
(DT_abs+Safe). In order to maintain correctness even for packets
that are forwarded after expiration (i.e., the 'D' flag), N has to be
chosen to be so large that the test condition will not fail -- i.e.,
that in all scenarios of interest, the packet will be dropped before
the current time becomes equal to DT_abs+2^N*SAFETY_FACTOR.
o Alphabetized contributor names. Acknowledgments
o Added this section. The authors thank Pascal Thubert for suggesting the idea and
encouraging the work. Thanks to Shwetha Bhandari's suggestions,
which were instrumental in extending the timing information to
heterogeneous networks. The authors acknowledge the 6TiSCH WG
members for their inputs on the mailing list. Special thanks to
Jerry Daniel, Dan Frost (Routing Directorate), Charlie Kaufman
(Security Directorate), Seema Kumar, Tal Mizrahi, Avinash Mohan,
Shalu Rajendran, Anita Varghese, and Dale Worley (General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) review) for their support and valuable feedback.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Lijo Thomas Lijo Thomas
C-DAC Centre for Development of Advanced Computing
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Vellayambalam Vellayambalam
Trivandrum 695033 Trivandrum 695033
India India
Email: lijo@cdac.in Email: lijo@cdac.in
Satish Anamalamudi Satish Anamalamudi
SRM University-AP SRM University-AP
Amaravati Campus Amaravati Campus
Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh 522 502 Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh 522 502
India India
Email: satishnaidu80@gmail.com Email: satishnaidu80@gmail.com
S.V.R Anand
S.V.R. Anand
Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012 Bangalore 560012
India India
Email: anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in Email: anandsvr@iisc.ac.in
Malati Hegde Malati Hegde
Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012 Bangalore 560012
India India
Email: malati@ece.iisc.ernet.in Email: malati@iisc.ac.in
Charles E. Perkins Charles E. Perkins
Futurewei Lupin Lodge
2330 Central Expressway 20600 Aldercroft Heights Rd.
Santa Clara 95050 Los Gatos, CA 95033
Unites States United States of America
Email: charliep@computer.org Email: charliep@computer.org
 End of changes. 136 change blocks. 
465 lines changed or deleted 538 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/