RFC 9139: Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Adaptation to Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (LoWPANs)
- C. Gündoğan,
- T. Schmidt,
- M. Wählisch,
- C. Scherb,
- C. Marxer,
- C. Tschudin
Abstract
This document defines a convergence layer for Content-Centric Networking
(CCNx) and Named Data Networking (NDN) over IEEE
802.15.4 Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (LoWPANs). A
new frame format is specified to adapt CCNx
and NDN packets to the small MTU size of IEEE 802.15.4. For that,
syntactic and semantic changes to the TLV-based header formats are
described. To support compatibility with other LoWPAN technologies that
may coexist on a wireless medium, the dispatching scheme provided by
IPv6 over LoWPAN (6LoWPAN) is extended
to include new dispatch types for CCNx and NDN.
Additionally, the fragmentation component of the 6LoWPAN
dispatching framework is applied to Information
This document is a product of the IRTF Information
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.¶
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) has been identified as a promising
deployment area for Information
The IEEE 802.15.4 [ieee802.15.4] link layer is
used in low-power and lossy networks (see LLN in
[RFC7228]), in which devices are typically
battery operated and constrained in resources. Characteristics of LLNs
include an unreliable environment, low-bandwidth transmissions, and
increased latencies. IEEE 802.15.4 admits a maximum physical-layer
packet size of 127 bytes. The maximum frame header size is 25 bytes,
which leaves 102 bytes for the payload. IEEE 802.15.4 security features
further reduce this payload length by up to 21 bytes, yielding a net of
81 bytes for CCNx or NDN packet headers, signatures, and content.¶
6LoWPAN [RFC4944] [RFC6282] is a
convergence layer that provides frame formats, header compression, and
adaptation
Prevalent packet formats based on Type
ICN LoWPAN defines a more space-efficient representation of CCNx and NDN packet formats. This syntactic change is described for CCNx and NDN separately, as the header formats and TLV encodings differ notably. For further reductions, default header values suitable for constrained IoT networks are selected in order to elide corresponding TLVs. Experimental evaluations of the ICN LoWPAN header compression schemes in [ICNLOWPAN] illustrate a reduced message overhead, a shortened message airtime, and an overall decline in power consumption for typical Class 2 devices [RFC7228] compared to uncompressed ICN messages.¶
In a typical IoT scenario (see Figure 1), embedded devices are interconnected via a quasi
The document has received fruitful reviews by members of the ICN community and the research group (see the Acknowledgments section) for a period of two years. It is the consensus of ICNRG that this document should be published in the IRTF Stream of the RFC series. This document does not constitute an IETF standard.¶
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document uses the terminology of [RFC7476], [RFC7927], and [RFC7945] for ICN entities.¶
The following terms are used in the document and defined as follows:¶
- ICN LoWPAN:
- Information
-Centric Networking over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network¶ - LLN:
- Low-Power and Lossy Network¶
- CCNx:
- Content-Centric Networking¶
- NDN:
- Named Data Networking¶
- byte:
- synonym for octet¶
- nibble:
- synonym for 4 bits¶
- time-value:
- a time offset measured in seconds¶
- time-code:
- an 8-bit encoded time-value¶
3. Overview of ICN LoWPAN
3.1. Link-Layer Convergence
ICN LoWPAN provides a convergence layer that maps ICN packets onto constrained link-layer technologies. This includes features such as link-layer fragmentation, protocol separation on the link-layer level, and link-layer address mappings. The stack traversal is visualized in Figure 2.¶
Section 4 of this document defines the convergence layer for IEEE 802.15.4.¶
3.2. Stateless Header Compression
ICN LoWPAN also defines a stateless header compression scheme with
the main purpose of reducing header overhead of ICN packets. This is
of particular importance for link layers with small MTUs. The
stateless compression does not require preconfiguratio
The CCNx and NDN header formats are composed of Type
The stateless header compression scheme makes use of compact bit fields to indicate the presence of optional TLVs in the uncompressed packet. The order of set bits in the bit fields corresponds to the order of each TLV in the packet. Further compression is achieved by specifying default values and reducing the range of certain header fields.¶
Figure 3 demonstrates the stateless header compression idea. In this example, the first type of the first TLV is removed and the corresponding bit in the bit field is set. The second TLV represents a fixed-length TLV (e.g., the Nonce TLV in NDN), so that the Type and Length fields are removed. The third TLV represents a boolean TLV (e.g., the MustBeFresh selector in NDN) for which the Type, Length, and Value fields are elided.¶
Stateless TLV compression for NDN is defined in Section 5. Section 6 defines the stateless TLV compression for CCNx.¶
The extensibility of this compression is described in Section 4.1.1 and allows future documents to update the compression rules outlined in this document.¶
3.3. Stateful Header Compression
ICN LoWPAN further employs two orthogonal, stateful compression schemes for packet size reductions, which are defined in Section 8. These mechanisms rely on shared contexts that are either distributed and maintained in the entire LoWPAN or are generated on demand hop-wise on a particular Interest-Data path.¶
The shared context identification is defined in Section 8.1. The hop-wise name compression "en route" is specified in Section 8.2.¶
4. IEEE 802.15.4 Adaptation
4.1. LoWPAN Encapsulation
The IEEE 802.15.4 frame header does not provide a protocol identifier for its payload. This causes problems of misinterpreting frames when several network layers coexist on the same link. To mitigate errors, 6LoWPAN defines dispatches as encapsulation headers for IEEE 802.15.4 frames (see Section 5 of [RFC4944]). Multiple LoWPAN encapsulation headers can precede the actual payload, and each encapsulation header is identified by a dispatch type.¶
[RFC8025] further specifies dispatch Pages to
switch between different contexts. When a LoWPAN parser encounters a Page
switch LoWPAN encapsulation header, all
following encapsulation headers are interpreted by using a dispatch
Page, as specified by the Page switch
header. Pages 0 and 1 are reserved for 6LoWPAN. This document uses
Page 14 (1111 1110 (0xFE)) for ICN LoWPAN.¶
The base dispatch format (Figure 4) is used and extended by CCNx and NDN in Sections 5 and 6.¶
- P: Protocol
- M: Message Type
- C: Compression
ICN LoWPAN frames with compressed CCNx and NDN messages (C=1) use the extended dispatch format in Figure 5.¶
- CID: Context Identifier
-
- 0:
- No context identifiers are present.¶
- 1:
- Context identifier(s) are present (see Section 8.1).¶
- EXT: Extension
-
- 0:
- No extension bytes are present.¶
- 1:
- Extension byte(s) are present (see Section 4.1.1).¶
The encapsulation format for ICN LoWPAN is displayed in Figure 6.¶
- IEEE 802.15.4:
- The IEEE 802.15.4 header.¶
- RFC4944 Disp.:
- Optional additional dispatches defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC4944].¶
- Page:
-
Page switch. 14 for ICN LoWPAN.¶ - ICN LoWPAN:
- Dispatches as defined in Sections 5 and 6.¶
- Payload:
- The actual (un-)compressed CCNx or NDN message.¶
4.1.1. Dispatch Extensions
Extension bytes allow for the extensibility of the initial compression rule set. The base format for an extension byte is depicted in Figure 7.¶
Extension bytes are numbered according to their order. Future
documents MUST follow the naming scheme EXT_0, EXT_1, ...
when updating or referring to a specific dispatch extension byte.
Amendments that require an exchange of configurational parameters
between devices SHOULD use manifests to encode structured data in a
well-defined format, e.g., as outlined in [ICNRG-FLIC].¶
4.2. Adaptation-Layer Fragmentation
Small payload sizes in the LoWPAN require fragmentation for various
network layers. Therefore, Section 5.3 of [RFC4944]
defines a protocol
The fragmentation LoWPAN header can encapsulate other dispatch headers. The order of dispatch types is defined in Section 5 of [RFC4944]. Figure 8 shows the fragmentation scheme. The reassembled ICN LoWPAN frame does not contain any fragmentation headers and is depicted in Figure 9.¶
The 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding (6LFF) [RFC8930] is an alternative approach that enables forwarding of fragments without reassembling packets on every intermediate hop. By reusing the 6LoWPAN dispatching framework, 6LFF integrates into ICN LoWPAN as seamlessly as the conventional hop-wise fragmentation. However, experimental evaluations [SFR-ICNLOWPAN] suggest that a more-refined integration can increase the cache utilization of forwarders on a request path.¶
5. Space-Efficient Message Encoding for NDN
5.1. TLV Encoding
The NDN packet format consists of TLV fields using the TLV encoding that is described in [NDN-PACKET-SPEC]. Type and Length fields are of variable size, where numbers greater than 252 are encoded using multiple bytes.¶
If the type or length number is less than 253,
then that number is encoded into the actual Type or Length field. If
the number is greater or equals 253 and
fits into 2 bytes, then the Type or Length field is set to 253 and the number is encoded in the next
following 2 bytes in network byte order, i.e., from the most
significant byte (MSB) to the least significant byte (LSB). If the
number is greater than 2 bytes and fits into 4 bytes, then the Type
or Length field is set to 254 and the
number is encoded in the subsequent 4 bytes in network byte order.
For larger numbers, the Type or Length field is set to 255 and the number is encoded in the subsequent 8
bytes in network byte order.¶
In this specification, compressed NDN TLVs encode Type and Length fields using self-delimiting numeric values (SDNVs) [RFC6256] commonly known from Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocols. Instead of using the first byte as a marker for the number of following bytes, SDNVs use a single bit to indicate subsequent bytes.¶
Table 1 compares the required bytes for encoding a few selected values using the NDN TLV encoding and SDNVs. For values up to 127, both methods require a single byte. Values in the range (128...252) encode as one byte for the NDN TLV scheme, while SDNVs require two bytes. Starting at value 253, SDNVs require a less or equal amount of bytes compared to the NDN TLV encoding.¶
5.2. Name TLV Compression
This Name TLV compression encodes Length fields of two consecutive NameComponent TLVs into one byte, using a nibble for each. The most significant nibble indicates the length of an immediately following NameComponent TLV. The least significant nibble denotes the length of a subsequent NameComponent TLV. A length of 0 marks the end of the compressed Name TLV. The last Length field of an encoded NameComponent is either 0x00 for a name with an even number of components and 0xYF (Y > 0) if an odd number of components are present. This process limits the length of a NameComponent TLV to 15 bytes but allows for an unlimited number of components. An example for this encoding is presented in Figure 10.¶
5.3. Interest Messages
5.3.1. Uncompressed Interest Messages
An uncompressed Interest message uses the base dispatch format
(see Figure 4) and sets the C, P, and M
flags to 0 (Figure 11).
The Interest message is handed to the NDN stack without modifications.¶
5.3.2. Compressed Interest Messages
The compressed Interest message uses the extended dispatch format
(Figure 5) and sets the C flag to
1 and the P and M flags to 0.
If an Interest message contains TLVs that are not mentioned in the
following compression rules, then this message MUST be sent
uncompressed.¶
This specification assumes that a HopLimit TLV is part of the
original Interest message. If such a HopLimit TLV is not present, it
will be inserted with a default value of DEFAULT
In the default use case, the Interest message is compressed with the following minimal rule set:¶
The compressed NDN LoWPAN Interest message is visualized in Figure 12.¶
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in Figure 13.¶
- PFX: CanBePrefix TLV
- FRE: MustBeFresh TLV
- FWD: ForwardingHint TLV
-
- 0:
- The uncompressed message does not include a ForwardingHint TLV.¶
- 1:
- The uncompressed message does include a ForwardingHint TLV. The Type field is removed from the compressed message. Further, all link delegation types and link preference types are removed. All included names are compressed according to Section 5.2. If any name is not compressible, the message MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- APM: Application
Parameters TLV - DIG: Implicit
Sha256Digest Component TLV - RSV: Reserved
- Must be set to 0.¶
- CID: Context Identifier
- See Figure 5.¶
- EXT: Extension
-
- 0:
- No extension byte follows.¶
- 1:
- Extension byte
EXT_0follows immediately. See Section 5.3.3.¶
5.3.3. Dispatch Extension
The EXT_0 byte follows the
description in Section 4.1.1 and is illustrated
in Figure 14.¶
5.4. Data Messages
5.4.1. Uncompressed Data Messages
An uncompressed Data message uses the base dispatch
format and sets the C and P flags to 0 and the M flag
to 1 (Figure 15). The Data message is
handed to the NDN stack without modifications.¶
5.4.2. Compressed Data Messages
The compressed Data message uses the extended dispatch
format (Figure 5) and sets the C
and M flags to 1. The
P flag is set to 0. If a Data
message contains TLVs that are not mentioned in the
following compression rules, then this message MUST be sent
uncompressed.¶
By default, the Data message is compressed with the following base rule set:¶
The compressed NDN LoWPAN Data message is visualized in Figure 16.¶
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in Figure 17.¶
- FBI: FinalBlockId TLV
-
- 0:
- The uncompressed message does not include a FinalBlockId TLV.¶
- 1:
- The uncompressed message does include a FinalBlockId, and it is encoded according to Section 5.2. If the FinalBlockId TLV is not compressible, then the message MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- CON: ContentType TLV
- KLO: KeyLocator TLV
-
- 0:
- If the included SignatureType requires a KeyLocator TLV, then the KeyLocator represents a name and is compressed according to Section 5.2. If the name is not compressible, then the message MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- 1:
- If the included SignatureType requires a KeyLocator TLV, then the KeyLocator represents a KeyDigest. The Type field of this KeyDigest is removed.¶
- RSV: Reserved
- Must be set to 0.¶
- CID: Context Identifier
- See Figure 5.¶
- EXT: Extension
-
- 0:
- No extension byte follows.¶
- 1:
- Extension byte
EXT_0follows immediately. See Section 5.4.3.¶
5.4.3. Dispatch Extension
The EXT_0 byte follows the
description in Section 4.1.1 and is illustrated
in Figure 18.¶
6. Space-Efficient Message Encoding for CCNx
6.1. TLV Encoding
The generic CCNx TLV encoding is described in [RFC8609]. Type and Length fields attain the common fixed length of 2 bytes.¶
The TLV encoding for CCNx LoWPAN is changed to the more space-efficient encoding described in Section 5.1. Hence, NDN and CCNx use the same compressed format for writing TLVs.¶
6.2. Name TLV Compression
Name TLVs are compressed using the scheme already defined in Section 5.2 for NDN. If a Name TLV contains T_IPID, T_APP, or organizational TLVs, then the name remains uncompressed.¶
6.3. Interest Messages
6.3.1. Uncompressed Interest Messages
An uncompressed Interest message uses the base dispatch format
(see Figure 4) and sets the C and M flags to 0.
The P flag is set to 1 (Figure 19).
The Interest message is handed to the CCNx stack without modifications.¶
6.3.2. Compressed Interest Messages
The compressed Interest message uses the extended dispatch format
(Figure 5) and sets the C and P flags to 1. The M flag is set to 0.
If an Interest message contains TLVs that are not mentioned in the
following compression rules, then this message MUST be sent
uncompressed.¶
In the default use case, the Interest message is compressed with the following minimal rule set:¶
The compressed CCNx LoWPAN Interest message is visualized in Figure 20.¶
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in Figure 21.¶
- FLG: Flags field in the fixed header
- PTY: PacketType field in the fixed header
- HPL: HopLimit field in the fixed header
- FRS: Reserved field in the fixed header
- PAY: Optional Payload TLV
- ILT: Optional hop-by-hop Interest
Lifetime TLV -
See Section 6.3.2.1 for further details on the ordering of hop-by-hop TLVs.¶
- MGH: Optional hop-by-hop MessageHash TLV
-
See Section 6.3.2.1 for further details on the ordering of hop-by-hop TLVs.¶
This TLV is expected to contain a T_SHA-256 TLV. If another hash is contained, then the Interest MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- KIR: Optional Key
Id Restriction TLV -
This TLV is expected to contain a T_SHA-256 TLV. If another hash is contained, then the Interest MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- CHR: Optional Content
Object Hash Restriction TLV -
This TLV is expected to contain a T_SHA-256 TLV. If another hash is contained, then the Interest MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- VAL: Optional Validation
Algorithm and Validation Payload TLVs -
- 0:
- No validation
-related TLVs are present in the Interest message.¶ - 1:
- Validation
-related TLVs are present in the Interest message. An additional byte follows immediately that handles validation -related TLV compressions and is described in Section 6.3.2.2.¶
- CID: Context Identifier
- EXT: Extension
-
- 0:
- No extension byte follows.¶
- 1:
- Extension byte
EXT_0follows immediately. See Section 6.3.3.¶
6.3.2.1. Hop-By-Hop Header TLVs Compression
Hop-by-hop header TLVs are unordered. For an Interest message, two optional hop-by-hop header TLVs are defined in [RFC8609], but several more can be defined in higher-level specifications. For the compression specified in the previous section, the hop-by-hop TLVs are ordered as follows:¶
Note: All hop-by-hop header TLVs other than the Interest
6.3.2.2. Validation
- ValidationAlg: Optional Validation
Algorithm TLV -
- 0000:
- An uncompressed Validation
Algorithm TLV is included.¶ - 0001:
- A T_CRC32C Validation
Algorithm TLV is assumed, but no Validation Algorithm TLV is included.¶ - 0010:
- A T_CRC32C Validation
Algorithm TLV is assumed, but no Validation Algorithm TLV is included. Additionally, a SignatureTime TLV is inlined without a Type and a Length field.¶ - 0011:
- A T_HMAC-SHA256 Validation
Algorithm TLV is assumed, but no Validation Algorithm TLV is included.¶ - 0100:
- A T_HMAC-SHA256 Validation
Algorithm TLV is assumed, but no Validation Algorithm TLV is included. Additionally, a SignatureTime TLV is inlined without a Type and a Length field.¶ - 0101:
- Reserved.¶
- 0110:
- Reserved.¶
- 0111:
- Reserved.¶
- 1000:
- Reserved.¶
- 1001:
- Reserved.¶
- 1010:
- Reserved.¶
- 1011:
- Reserved.¶
- 1100:
- Reserved.¶
- 1101:
- Reserved.¶
- 1110:
- Reserved.¶
- 1111:
- Reserved.¶
- KeyID: Optional KeyID TLV within the Validation
Algorithm TLV -
- 00:
- The KeyID TLV is absent.¶
- 01:
- The KeyID TLV is present and uncompressed.¶
- 10:
- A T_SHA-256 TLV is present, and the Type and Length fields are removed. The Length field is assumed to represent 32 bytes. The outer KeyID TLV is omitted.¶
- 11:
- A T_SHA-512 TLV is present, and the Type and Length fields are removed. The Length field is assumed to represent 64 bytes. The outer KeyID TLV is omitted.¶
- RSV: Reserved
- Must be set to 0.¶
The Validation
6.3.3. Dispatch Extension
The EXT_0 byte follows the
description in Section 4.1.1 and is illustrated
in Figure 23.¶
6.4. Content Objects
6.4.1. Uncompressed Content Objects
An uncompressed Content Object uses the base dispatch format (see
Figure 4) and sets the C flag to
0 and the P and M flags to
1 (Figure 24).
The Content Object is handed to the CCNx stack without modifications.¶
6.4.2. Compressed Content Objects
The compressed Content Object uses the extended dispatch format
(Figure 5) and sets the C, P, and M
flags to 1. If a Content Object contains TLVs that are not mentioned in
the following compression
rules, then this message MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
By default, the Content Object is compressed with the following base rule set:¶
The compressed CCNx LoWPAN Data message is visualized in Figure 25.¶
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in Figure 26.¶
- FLG: Flags field in the fixed header
- See Section 6.3.2.¶
- FRS: Reserved field in the fixed header
- See Section 6.3.2.¶
- PAY: Optional Payload TLV
- See Section 6.3.2.¶
- RCT: Optional hop-by-hop Recommended Cache Time TLV
- MGH: Optional hop-by-hop MessageHash TLV
-
See Section 6.4.2.1 for further details on the ordering of hop-by-hop TLVs.¶
This TLV is expected to contain a T_SHA-256 TLV. If another hash is contained, then the Content Object MUST be sent uncompressed.¶
- PLTYP: Optional PayloadType TLV
- EXP: Optional ExpiryTime TLV
- VAL: Optional Validation
Algorithm and Validation Payload TLVs - See Section 6.3.2.¶
- RSV: Reserved
- Must be set to 0.¶
- CID: Context Identifier
- See Figure 5.¶
- EXT: Extension
-
- 0:
- No extension byte follows.¶
- 1:
- Extension byte
EXT_0follows immediately. See Section 6.4.3.¶
6.4.2.1. Hop-By-Hop Header TLVs Compression
Hop-by-hop header TLVs are unordered. For a Content Object message, two optional hop-by-hop header TLVs are defined in [RFC8609], but several more can be defined in higher-level specifications. For the compression specified in the previous section, the hop-by-hop TLVs are ordered as follows:¶
Note: All hop-by-hop header TLVs other than the Recommended
6.4.3. Dispatch Extension
The EXT_0 byte follows the
description in Section 4.1.1 and is illustrated
in Figure 27.¶
7. Compressed Time Encoding
This document adopts the 8-bit compact time representation for
relative time-values described in Section 5 of [RFC5497] with the constant factor C set to C :=
1/32.¶
Valid time offsets in CCNx and NDN range from a few milliseconds (e.g., lifetime of low-latency Interests) to several years (e.g., content freshness periods in caches). Therefore, this document adds two modifications to the compression algorithm.¶
The first modification is the inclusion of a subnormal form [IEEE.754.2019] for time-codes with exponent 0 to provide an increased precision and a gradual underflow for the smallest numbers. The formula is changed as follows (a := mantissa, b := exponent):¶
This configuration allows for the following ranges:¶
The second modification only applies to uncompressible time offsets that are outside any security envelope. An invalid time-value MUST be set to the largest valid time-value that is smaller than the invalid input value before compression.¶
8. Stateful Header Compression
Stateful header compression in ICN LoWPAN enables packet size reductions in two ways. First, common information that is shared throughout the local LoWPAN may be memorized in the context state at all nodes and omitted from communication. Second, redundancy in a single Interest-Data exchange may be removed from ICN stateful forwarding on a hop-by-hop basis and memorized in en route state tables.¶
8.1. LoWPAN-Local State
A Context Identifier (CID) is a byte that refers to a particular conceptual context between network devices and MAY be used to replace frequently appearing information, such as name prefixes, suffixes, or meta information, such as Interest lifetime.¶
The 7-bit CID is a locally scoped unique identifier that represents the context state shared between the sender and receiver of the corresponding frame (see Figure 28). If set, the most significant bit indicates the presence of another, subsequent CID byte (see Figure 33).¶
The context state shared between senders and receivers is removed from the compressed packet prior to sending and reinserted after reception prior to passing to the upper stack.¶
The actual information in a context and how it is encoded are out of scope of this document. The initial distribution and maintenance of shared context is out of scope of this document. Frames containing unknown or invalid CIDs MUST be silently discarded.¶
8.2. En Route State
In CCNx and NDN, Name TLVs are included in Interest messages, and they return in Data messages. Returning Name TLVs either equal the original Name TLV or contain the original Name TLV as a prefix. ICN LoWPAN reduces this redundancy in responses by replacing Name TLVs with single bytes that represent link-local HopIDs. HopIDs are carried as Context Identifiers (see Section 8.1) of link-local scope, as shown in Figure 29.¶
A HopID is valid if not all ID bits are set to zero and invalid otherwise. This yields 127 distinct HopIDs. If this range (1...127) is exhausted, the messages MUST be sent without en route state compression until new HopIDs are available. An ICN LoWPAN node that forwards without replacing the Name TLV with a HopID (without en route compression) MUST invalidate the HopID by setting all ID bits to zero.¶
While an Interest is traversing, a forwarder generates an ephemeral HopID that is tied to a Pending Interest Table (PIT) entry. Each HopID MUST be unique within the local PIT and only exists during the lifetime of a PIT entry. To maintain HopIDs, the local PIT is extended by two new columns: HIDi (inbound HopIDs) and HIDo (outbound HopIDs).¶
HopIDs are included in Interests and stored on the next hop with the resulting PIT entry in the HIDi column. The HopID is replaced with a newly generated local HopID before the Interest is forwarded. This new HopID is stored in the HIDo column of the local PIT (see Figure 30).¶
Responses include HopIDs that were obtained from Interests. If the returning Name TLV equals the original Name TLV, then the name is entirely elided. Otherwise, only the matching name prefix is elided, and the distinct name suffix is included along with the HopID. When a response is forwarded, the contained HopID is extracted and used to match against the correct PIT entry by performing a lookup on the HIDo column. The HopID is then replaced with the corresponding HopID from the HIDi column prior to forwarding the response (Figure 31).¶
It should be noted that each forwarder of an Interest in an ICN LoWPAN network can individually decide whether to participate in en route compression or not. However, an ICN LoWPAN node SHOULD use en route compression whenever the stateful compression mechanism is activated.¶
Note also that the extensions of the PIT data structure are required only at ICN LoWPAN nodes, while regular NDN/CCNx forwarders outside of an ICN LoWPAN domain do not need to implement these extensions.¶
8.3. Integrating Stateful Header Compression
A CID appears whenever the CID flag is set (see Figure 5). The CID is appended to the last ICN LoWPAN dispatch byte, as shown in Figure 32.¶
Multiple CIDs are chained together, with the most significant bit indicating the presence of a subsequent CID (Figure 33). This allows the use of multiple shared contexts in compressed messages.¶
The HopID is always included as the very first CID.¶
9. ICN LoWPAN Constants and Variables
This is a summary of all ICN LoWPAN constants and variables.¶
- DEFAULT
_NDN _HOPLIMIT : - 255¶
10. Implementation Report and Guidance
The ICN LoWPAN scheme defined in this document has been implemented as an extension of the NDN/CCNx software stack [CCN-LITE] in its IoT version on RIOT [RIOT]. An experimental evaluation for NDN over ICN LoWPAN with varying configurations has been performed in [ICNLOWPAN]. Energy profiling and processing time measurements indicate significant energy savings, and the amortized costs for processing show no penalties.¶
10.1. Preferred Configuration
The header compression performance depends on certain aspects and configurations. It works best for the following cases:¶
Name components are of type Generic
10.2. Further Experimental Deployments
An investigation of ICN LoWPAN in large-scale deployments with varying traffic patterns using larger samples of the different board types available remains as future work. This document will be revised to progress it to the Standards Track, once sufficient operational experience has been acquired. Experience reports are encouraged, particularly in the following areas:¶
11. Security Considerations
Main memory is typically a scarce resource of constrained networked devices. Fragmentation, as described in this memo, preserves fragments and purges them only after a packet is reassembled, which requires a buffering of all fragments. This scheme is able to handle fragments for distinctive packets simultaneously, which can lead to overflowing packet buffers that cannot hold all necessary fragments for packet reassembly. Implementers are thus urged to make use of appropriate buffer replacement strategies for fragments. Minimal fragment forwarding [RFC8930] can potentially prevent fragment buffer saturation in forwarders.¶
The stateful header compression generates ephemeral HopIDs for incoming and outgoing Interests and consumes them on returning Data packets. Forged Interests can deplete the number of available HopIDs, thus leading to a denial of compression service for subsequent content requests.¶
To further alleviate the problems caused by forged fragments or Interest initiations, proper protective mechanisms for accessing the link layer should be deployed. IEEE 802.15.4, e.g., provides capabilities to protect frames and restrict them to a point-to-point link or a group of devices.¶
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. Updates to the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Type Field Registry
IANA has assigned dispatch values for ICN LoWPAN in the "Dispatch Type Field" subregistry [RFC4944] [RFC8025] of the "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters" registry. Table 2 represents the updates to the registry.¶
13. References
13.1. Normative References
- [IEEE.754.2019]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE Std 754-2019, <https://
standards >..ieee .org /content /ieee -standards /en /standard /754 -2019 .html - [ieee802.15.4]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", IEEE Std 802.15.4-2020, <https://
standards >..ieee .org /standard /802 _15 _4 -2020 .html - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC4944]
-
Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4944 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4944 - [RFC5497]
-
Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5497 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5497 - [RFC6256]
-
Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6256 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6256 - [RFC6282]
-
Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6282 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6282 - [RFC6775]
-
Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6775 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6775 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174
13.2. Informative References
- [CCN-LITE]
-
"CCN-lite, a lightweight implementation of the CCNx protocol and its variations", <https://
github >..com /cn -uofbasel /ccn -lite - [ICNLOWPAN]
-
Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Schmidt, T., and M. Wählisch, "Designing a LoWPAN convergence layer for the Information Centric Internet of Things", Computer Communications, Vol. 164, No. 1, p. 114–123, Elsevier, , <https://
doi >..org /10 .1016 /j .comcom .2020 .10 .002 - [ICNRG-FLIC]
-
Tschudin, C., Wood, C., Mosko, M., and D. Oran, Ed., "File-Like ICN Collections (FLIC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-irtf , , <https://-icnrg -flic -02 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -irtf -icnrg -flic -02 - [NDN]
-
Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Thornton, J., Plass, M., Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking named content", 5th Int. Conf. on emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies
(ACM CoNEXT), , <https://
doi >..org /10 .1145 /1658939 .1658941 - [NDN-EXP1]
-
Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, TC., and M. Wählisch, "Information centric networking in the IoT: experiments with NDN in the wild", Proc. of 1st ACM Conf. on Information
-Centric , , <http://Networking (ICN-2014) ACM DL, pp. 77-86 dx >..doi .org /10 .1145 /2660129 .2660144 - [NDN-EXP2]
-
Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Lenders, M., Petersen, H., Schmidt, TC., and M. Wählisch, "NDN, CoAP, and MQTT: a comparative measurement study in the IoT", Proc. of 5th ACM Conf. on Information
-Centric , , <https://Networking (ICN-2018) ACM DL, pp. 159-171 doi >..org /10 .1145 /3267955 .3267967 - [NDN-MAC]
-
Kietzmann, P., Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, TC., Hahm, O., and M. Wählisch, "The need for a name to MAC address mapping in NDN: towards quantifying the resource gain", Proc. of 4th ACM Conf. on Information
-Centric , , <https://Networking (ICN-2017) ACM DL, pp. 36-42 doi >..org /10 .1145 /3125719 .3125737 - [NDN
-PACKET -SPEC] -
"NDN Packet Format Specification", <https://
named >.-data .net /doc /NDN -packet -spec /0 .3 / - [RFC7228]
-
Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for Constrained
-Node , RFC 7228, DOI 10Networks" .17487 , , <https:///RFC7228 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7228 - [RFC7252]
-
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7252 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7252 - [RFC7476]
-
Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G., Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum, "Information
-Centric , RFC 7476, DOI 10Networking: Baseline Scenarios" .17487 , , <https:///RFC7476 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7476 - [RFC7927]
-
Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I., Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch, "Information
-Centric , RFC 7927, DOI 10Networking (ICN) Research Challenges" .17487 , , <https:///RFC7927 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7927 - [RFC7945]
-
Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S., and G. Boggia, "Information
-Centric , RFC 7945, DOI 10Networking: Evaluation and Security Considerations" .17487 , , <https:///RFC7945 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7945 - [RFC8025]
-
Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch", RFC 8025, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8025 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8025 - [RFC8569]
-
Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8569 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8569 - [RFC8609]
-
Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8609 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8609 - [RFC8930]
-
Watteyne, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., and C. Bormann, "On Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multi-Hop IPv6 Network", RFC 8930, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8930 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8930 - [RFC8931]
-
Thubert, P., Ed., "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Selective Fragment Recovery", RFC 8931, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8931 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8931 - [RIOT]
-
Baccelli, E., Gündoğan, C., Hahm, O., Kietzmann, P., Lenders, MS., Petersen, H., Schleiser, K., Schmidt, TC., and M. Wählisch, "RIOT: An Open Source Operating System for Low-End Embedded Devices in the IoT", IEEE Internet of Things Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, p.
4428-4440, , <https://
doi >..org /10 .1109 /JIOT .2018 .2815038 - [SFR-ICNLOWPAN]
-
Lenders, M., Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, TC., and M. Wählisch, "Connecting the Dots: Selective Fragment Recovery in ICNLoWPAN", Proc. of 7th ACM Conf. on Information
-Centric , , <https://Networking (ICN-2020) ACM DL, pp. 70-76 doi >..org /10 .1145 /3405656 .3418719 - [TLV
-ENC -802 .15 .4] -
Mosko, M. and C. Tschudin, "CCN and NDN TLV encodings in 802.15.4 packets", , <https://
datatracker >..ietf .org /meeting /interim -2015 -icnrg -01 /materials /slides -interim -2015 -icnrg -1 -2 - [WIRE
-FORMAT -CONSID] -
Wang, G., Tschudin, C., and R. Ravindran, "CCN/NDN Protocol Wire Format and Functionality Considerations", , <https://
datatracker >..ietf .org /meeting /interim -2015 -icnrg -01 /materials /slides -interim -2015 -icnrg -1 -8
Appendix A. Estimated Size Reduction
In the following, a theoretical evaluation is given to estimate the gains of ICN LoWPAN compared to uncompressed CCNx and NDN messages.¶
We assume that n is the number of name
components; comps_n denotes the sum of n
name component lengths. We also assume that the length of each name
component is lower than 16 bytes. The length of the content is given by
clen. The lengths of TLV components are
specific to the CCNx or NDN encoding and are outlined below.¶
A.1. NDN
The NDN TLV encoding has variable-sized TLV fields. For simplicity, the 1-byte form of each TLV component is assumed. A typical TLV component therefore is of size 2 (Type field + Length field) + the actual value.¶
A.1.1. Interest
Figure 34 depicts the
size requirements for a basic, uncompressed NDN Interest containing
a CanBePrefix TLV, a MustBeFresh TLV, an Interest
Figure 35 depicts the size requirements after compression.¶
The size difference is 11 + 1.5n bytes.¶
For the name /DE/HH/HAW/BT7, the
total size gain is 17 bytes, which is 43% of the uncompressed
packet.¶
A.1.2. Data
Figure 36 depicts the size requirements for a basic, uncompressed NDN Data containing a FreshnessPeriod as MetaInfo. A FreshnessPeriod of 1 minute is assumed, and the value is encoded using 1 byte. An HMACWithSha256 is assumed as a signature. The key locator is assumed to contain a Name TLV of length klen.¶
Figure 37 depicts the size requirements for the compressed version of the above Data packet.¶
The size difference is 15 + 1.5n bytes.¶
For the name /DE/HH/HAW/BT7, the
total size gain is 21 bytes.¶
A.2. CCNx
The CCNx TLV encoding defines a 2-byte encoding for Type and Length fields, summing up to 4 bytes in total without a value.¶
A.2.1. Interest
Figure 38 depicts
the size requirements for a basic, uncompressed CCNx Interest. No
hop-by-hop TLVs are included, the protocol version is assumed to be
1, and the Reserved field is assumed to be 0. A Key
Figure 39 depicts the size requirements after compression.¶
The size difference is 18 + 3.5n bytes.¶
For the name /DE/HH/HAW/BT7, the size
is reduced by 53 bytes, which is 53% of the uncompressed
packet.¶
A.2.2. Content Object
Figure 40 depicts the size requirements for a basic, uncompressed CCNx Content Object containing an ExpiryTime Message TLV, an HMAC_SHA-256 signature, the signature time, and a hash of the shared secret key. In the fixed header, the protocol version is assumed to be 1 and the Reserved field is assumed to be 0¶
Figure 41 depicts the size requirements for a basic, compressed CCNx Data.¶
The size difference is 35 + 3.5n bytes.¶
For the name /DE/HH/HAW/BT7, the size
is reduced by 70 bytes, which is 40% of the uncompressed packet
containing a 4-byte payload.¶
Acknowledgments
This work was stimulated by fruitful discussions in the ICNRG
and the communities of RIOT and CCNlite. We would like to
thank all active members for constructive thoughts and feedback. In
particular, the authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order)
Peter Kietzmann, Dirk Kutscher,
Martine Lenders, Colin Perkins,
and Junxiao Shi. The
hop-wise stateful name compression was brought up in a discussion by
Dave Oran, which is gratefully acknowledged.
Larger parts of this work
are inspired by [RFC4944] and
[RFC6282].
Special mention goes to Mark Mosko, as well as
G.Q. Wang and Ravi Ravindran,
as their previous work in [TLV-ENC-802.15.4]
and [WIRE