Hello Carles, Thomas and co-authors,
As promised during the last IETF meeting in Prague, here is my review.
In overall, the document seems solid, well structured and well written.
It is easy to understand and to follow.
I have one main question/comment:
Considering node A that fragments its packet to three fragments, and intend to
transmit to B.
B, when employing VRB technique, what would do when it will receive first the
fragment 2
instead of fragment 1?
Bellow is the draft contents with my annotations, starting with “[GP]".
Cheers,
Georgios
— — —
6lo T. Watteyne, Ed.
Internet-Draft Analog Devices
Intended status: Informational C. Bormann
Expires: September 12, 2019 Universitaet Bremen TZI
P. Thubert
Cisco
March 11, 2019
LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding
draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
Abstract
This document gives an overview of LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding.
When employing adaptation layer fragmentation in 6LoWPAN, it may be
beneficial for a forwarder not to have to reassemble each packet in
its entirety before forwarding it. This has always been possible
with the original fragmentation design of RFC4944. This document is
a companion document to [I-D.ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly],
which details the virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) implementation
technique which reduces the latency and increases end-to-end
reliability in route-over forwarding.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment March 2019
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Overview of 6LoWPAN Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Limits of Per-Hop Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Memory Management and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) Implementation . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Overview of 6LoWPAN Fragmentation
6LoWPAN fragmentation is defined in [RFC4944]. Although [RFC6282]
updates [RFC4944], it does not redefine 6LoWPAN fragmentation.
We use Figure 1 to illustrate 6LoWPAN fragmentation. We assume node
A forwards a packet to node B, possibly as part of a multi-hop route
between IPv6 source and destination nodes which are neither A nor B.
+---+ +---+
... ---| A |-------------------->| B |--- ...
+---+ +---+
# (frag. 5)
123456789 123456789
+---------+ +---------+
| # ###| |### # |
+---------+ +---------+
outgoing incoming
fragmentation reassembly
buffer buffer
Figure 1: Fragmentation at node A, reassembly at node B.
Node A starts by compacting the IPv6 packet using the header
compression mechanism defined in [RFC6282]. If the resulting 6LoWPAN
packet does not fit into a single link-layer frame, node A's 6LoWPAN
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment March 2019
sublayer cuts it into multiple 6LoWPAN fragments, which it transmits
as separate link-layer frames to node B. Node B's 6LoWPAN sublayer
reassembles these fragments, inflates the compressed header fields
back to the original IPv6 header, and hands over the full IPv6 packet
to its IPv6 layer.
In Figure 1, a packet forwarded by node A to node B is cut into nine
fragments, numbered 1 to 9. Each fragment is represented by the '#'
symbol. Node A has sent fragments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 to node B. Node B
has received fragments 1, 2, 3, 6 from node A. Fragment 5 is still
being transmitted at the link layer from node A to node B.
[GP] Isn’t it more straightforward to consider 1, 2, 3 and 4 been sent,
5 is still being transmitted, while, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to be transmitted?
Otherwise, there are concerns, why fragments 5 and 6 before 4?
Fragment 4 was transmitted earlier and was not successful?
Conceptually, a reassembly buffer for 6LoWPAN contains:
o a datagram_size,
o a datagram_tag, associated to the link-layer sender and receiver
addresses to which the datagram_tag is local,
o the actual packet data from the fragments received so far, in a
form that makes it possible to detect when the whole packet has
been received and can be processed or forwarded,
o a timer that allows discarding a partially reassembled packet
after some timeout.
A fragmentation header is added to each fragment; it indicates what
portion of the packet that fragment corresponds to. Section 5.3 of
[RFC4944] defines the format of the header for the first and
subsequent fragments. All fragments are tagged with a 16-bit
"datagram_tag", used to identify which packet each fragment belongs
to. Each fragment can be uniquely identified by the source and
destination link-layer addresses of the frame that carries it, and
the datagram_tag.
[GP] This is not entirely true, right? This is yet, another limitation
of RFC 4944. There is no guarantee that two different source nodes
(A and B) may pick up the same “datagram_tag”, and send their
fragments to C, and then C when sending to D, will have two fragments
with same tags, and the same source and destination link-layer addresses.
The value of the datagram_tag only needs to be
locally unique to nodes A and B.
Node B's typical behavior, per [RFC4944], is as follows. Upon
receiving a fragment from node A with a datagram_tag previously
unseen from node A, node B allocates a buffer large enough to hold
the entire packet. The length of the packet is indicated in each
fragment (the datagram_size field), so node B can allocate the buffer
even if the first fragment it receives is not fragment 1. As
fragments come in, node B fills the buffer. When all fragments have
been received, node B inflates the compressed header fields into an
IPv6 header, and hands the resulting IPv6 packet to the IPv6 layer.
This behavior typically results in per-hop fragmentation and
reassembly. That is, the packet is fully reassembled, then
(re)fragmented, at every hop.
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment March 2019
2. Limits of Per-Hop Fragmentation and Reassembly
There are at least 2 limits to doing per-hop fragmentation and
reassembly. See [ARTICLE] for detailed simulation results on both
limits.
2.1. Latency
When reassembling, a node needs to wait for all the fragments to be
received before being able to generate the IPv6 packet, and possibly
forward it to the next hop. This repeats at every hop.
This may result in increased end-to-end latency compared to a case
where each fragment is forwarded without per-hop reassembly.
2.2. Memory Management and Reliability
Constrained nodes have limited memory. Assuming 1 kB reassembly
buffers, typical nodes only have enough memory for 1-3 reassembly
buffers.
Assuming the topology from Figure 2, where nodes A, B, C and D all
send packets through node E. We further assume that node E's memory
can only hold 3 reassembly buffers.
+---+ +---+
... --->| A |------>| B |
+---+ +---+\
\
+---+ +---+
| E |--->| F | ...
+---+ +---+
/
/
+---+ +---+
... --->| C |------>| D |
+---+ +---+
Figure 2: Illustrating the Memory Management Issue.
When nodes A, B and C concurrently send fragmented packets, all 3
reassembly buffers in node E are occupied. If, at that moment, node
D also sends a fragmented packet, node E has no option but to drop
one of the packets, lowering end-to-end reliability.
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment March 2019
3. Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) Implementation
Virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) is the implementation technique
described in [I-D.ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly] in which a
forwarder does not reassemble each packet in its entirety before
forwarding it.
VRB overcomes the limits listed in Section 2. Nodes don't
[GP] don’t —> do not
wait for
the last fragment before forwarding, reducing end-to-end latency.
Similarly, the memory footprint of VRB is just the VRB table,
reducing the packet drop probability significantly.
There are, however, limits:
Non-zero Packet Drop Probability: Each VRB table entry can be 12 B
(assuming 16-bit link-layer addresses). This is a footprint 2
orders of magnitude smaller compared to needing a 1280-byte
reassembly buffer for each packet. Yet, the size of the VRB
table necessarily remains finite. In the extreme case where a
node is required to concurrently forward more packets that it has
entries in its VRB table, packets are dropped.
No Fragment Recovery: There is no mechanism in VRB for the node that
reassembles a packet to request a single missing fragment.
Dropping a fragment requires the whole packet to be resent. This
causes unnecessary traffic, as fragments are forwarded even when
the destination node can never construct the original IPv6
packet.
No Per-Fragment Routing: All subsequent fragments follow the same
sequence of hops from the source to the destination node as
fragment 1.
[GP] Maybe a clarification could be added in the last limit, i.e., that
only the fragment 1 has the sources and destination addresses.
The severity and occurrence of these limits depends on the link-layer
used. Whether these limits are acceptable depends entirely on the
requirements the application places on the network.
If the limits are present and not acceptable for the application,
future specifications may define new protocols to overcome these
limits. One example is [I-D.thubert-6lo-fragment-recovery] which
defines a protocol which allows fragment recovery.
4. Security Considerations
An attacker can perform a DoS attack on a node implementing VRB by
[GP] DoS is not defined earlier
generating a large number of bogus "fragment 1" fragments without
sending subsequent fragments. This causes the VRB table to fill up.
Secure joining and the link-layer security that it sets up protects
against those attacks from network outsiders.
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment March 2019
5. IANA Considerations
No requests to IANA are made by this document.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yasuyuki Tanaka for his in-depth
review of this document.
7. Informative References
[ARTICLE] Tanaka, Y., Minet, P., and T. Watteyne, "6LoWPAN Fragment
Forwarding", IEEE Communications Standards Magazine ,
2009.
[GP] I assume the year is 2019 and not 2009.
[BOOK] Shelby, Z. and C. Bormann, "6LoWPAN", John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd monograph, DOI 10.1002/9780470686218, November 2009.
[I-D.ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly]
Bormann, C. and T. Watteyne, "Virtual reassembly buffers
in 6LoWPAN", draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly-00
(work in progress), July 2018.
[I-D.thubert-6lo-fragment-recovery]
Thubert, P., "6LoWPAN Selective Fragment Recovery", draft-
thubert-6lo-fragment-recovery-01 (work in progress), June
2018.
[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/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Watteyne (editor)
Analog Devices
32990 Alvarado-Niles Road, Suite 910
Union City, CA 94587
USA
Email: [email protected]
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment March 2019
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Email: [email protected]
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
France
Email: [email protected]
Watteyne, et al. Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 7]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 10:54:39 AM
Subject: [6lo] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
Dear 6lo WG,
Authors of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01 expressed in IETF 104 that
they believe that the document is ready for WGLC. No comments or
objections were made in this regard.
Therefore, this email starts a WGLC for draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
The WGLC will end on Wednesday, 8th of May.
Please provide your feedback on the document on the mailing list, even if
it is just a short "looks good" statement.
Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
