gogo6 IPv6 Video Series. Event, presentation and speaker details below: EVENT gogoNET LIVE! 4: IPv6 & The Internet of Things. http://gogonetlive.com November 12 – 14, 201, Silicon Valley, California Agenda: http://gogonetlive.com/gogonetlive4-agenda.asp PRESENTATION Scaling the Web to Billions of Nodes: Towards the IPv6 “Internet of Things” Abstract: http://www.gogo6.com/profiles/blogs/scaling-the-web-to-billions-of-nodes-towards-the-ipv6-internet-of Presentation video: http://www.gogo6.com/video/scaling-the-web-to-billions-of-nodes-by-carsten-bormann-at-gogone Interview video: http://www.gogo6.com/video/interview-with-carsten-bormann-at-gogonet-live-4-ipv6-iot-confere SPEAKER Carsten Bormann - Universität Bremen TZI & IETF WG Chair Bio/Profile: http://www.gogo6.com/profile/CarstenBormann MORE Learn more about IPv6 on the gogoNET social network and our online training courses http://www.gogo6.com/main Get free IPv6 connectivity with Freenet6 http://www.gogo6.com/Freenet6 Subscribe to the gogo6 IPv6 Channel on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=gogo6videos Follow gogo6 on Twitter http://twitter.com/gogo6inc Like gogo6 on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/IPv6-products-community-and-services-gogo6/161626696777

1. Scaling
the
Web
to
billions
of
nodes:
Towards
the
“Internet
of
Things”
2013-­‐11-­‐14
Prof.
Dr.-­‐Ing.
Carsten
Bormann
TZI
–
Universität
Bremen
1
Prof.
Carsten
Bormann,
cabo@tzi.org

2. Connecting:
Places ➔ People ➔ Things
Source: Ericsson

3. Scale up:
Number of nodes
(50 billion by 2020)
3

4. Scale down:
node
4

6. Scale down:
cost
complexity
6

7. cent
kilobyte
megahertz
7

8. Constrained nodes: orders of magnitude
10/100 vs. 50/250
Ÿ There is not just a single class of “constrained node”
Ÿ Class 0: too small to securely run on the Internet
§ “too constrained”
Ÿ Class 1: ~10 KiB data, ~100 KiB code
§ “quite constrained”, “10/100”
Ÿ Class 2: ~50 KiB data, ~250 KiB code
§ “not so constrained”, “50/250”
Ÿ These classes are not clear-cut, but may structure the
discussion and help avoid talking at cross-purposes
http://6lowapp.net
core@IETF80, 2011-03-28
8

9. http://www.flickr.com/photos/blahflowers/3878202215/sizes/l/
9

10. http://www.flickr.com/photos/blahflowers/3878202215/sizes/l/
10

11. Constrained networks
} Node: ... must sleep a lot (µW!)
— vs. “always on”
} Network: ~100 kbit/s, high loss,
high link variability
} May be used in an unstable radio environment
} Physical layer packet size may be limited
(~100 bytes)
} “LLN low power, lossy network”
802.15.4 „ZigBee“
Bluetooth Smart
Z-Wave
DECT ULE
11

12. Constrained Node Networks
Internet of Things
Wireless Embedded Internet
Low-Power/Lossy Networks
IP Smart Objects
IoT
WEI
LLN
IPSO
12

13. “IP is
important”
IP = Integration Protocol
13

14. We make the net work
14

15. Constrained Node/Networks
in the IETF
} WGs:
6Lo(WPAN)
ROLL
INT area
RTG area
(Internet)
(Routing)
L2/L3 interface L3 routing
CoRE
DICE
APP area
SEC area
(Applications) (Security)
L7 application L7 security
} Documenting techniques: LWIG (INT area,
Light-Weight Implementation Guidance)
} IETF has many supporting WGs (and RFCs),
e.g. security, management
15

16. (1)
The Network
6LoWPAN & RPL
16

17. Exhaustion of IANA IPv4
Unicast Address Free Pool
3 February 2011
17

18. RIPE (Europe): 2012-09-14
APNIC: already gone 2011-04-19
IPv4 = gone
14
0
~2
:
as
ric
e
Am
18
Source: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

19. IPv6 =
3.4×1038
340282366920938463463374607431768211456
addresses
} There are only ~ 1025 grains of sand on the earth
} Let’s settle for a billion (109) objects on the net
} Danfoss (EU): 0.4×109 thermostats so far
} Walmart (US): 0.1×109 CFL light bulbs per year
19

20. Constrained network example:
IEEE 802.15.4
“Z
} popular low-power (~ 1 mW) radio
igB
ee
”
} 0.9 and 2.4 GHz bands
— 868 MHz: Europe (1 % duty cycle, 20 kbit/s)
— 900 MHz: US (40 kbit/s)
— 2.4 GHz: World (256 kbit/s)
} up to 127-byte packets
} multicast works radio-range only
20

21. RFC 4944: make 802.15.4
look like an IPv6 link
} Basic Encapsulation
20
07
— Efficient representation of packets < ~100 bytes
— First approach to stateless Header Compression
} Fragmentation (map 1280 byte MTU to < 128 bytes)
— Datagram tag/Datagram offset
} Mesh forwarding
— Identify Originator/Final Destination
} Minimal use of complex MAC layer concepts
— cf. RFC 3819 “Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers”
21

22. RFC 6282: 6LoWPAN Header
Compression (6LoWPAN-HC)
20
11
} RFC 4944 header compression is stateless
} Traditional header compression (ROHC, RFC 3095 etc.) is
flow-based stateful
} Is there a middle ground?
} Context-based HC*):
maintain a single
area context state for an
entire 6LoWPAN
Infrastructure Cloud
|
|
+-----+ +-----+
| | Gateway | | Host
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+
| |
| Backbone link |
+--------------------+------------------+
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | Edge | | Edge | | Edge
| | router | | 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
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 o o o
o o o o o o o o o
*) draft-bormann-6lowpan-cbhc (2008-07)
22

23. 20
RFC 6775 (6LoWPAN-ND):
elements beyond RFC 4861
12
} ARO (address registration option):
— hosts register their addresses to routers (6LRs): NS/NA
— 6LRs can check the address with edge router (6LBR):
new ICMP messages DAR/DAC
— replaces NS/NA use for address resolution (off-link model),
but keeps NS/NA intact for NUD (neighbor unreachability detection)
} ABRO (authoritative border router option)
— distribute information about available 6LBRs (edge routers)
} 6CO (6LoWPAN Context Option)
— distribute header compression context in entire LoWPAN
23

24. 6LoWPAN =
✔
RFC4944
– HC1/HC2
+ RFC6282 (6LoWPAN-HC)
+ RFC6775 (6LoWPAN-ND)
24

25. 6LoWPAN:
2013
ETSI
plugtest
} Before
IETF87
(Berlin):
} Free
of
charge
6LoWPAN
plugtest
event
http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/663-2013-6lowpan-plugtests
25

26. 6LoWPAN beyond IEEE 802.15.4:
} Bluetooth Low Energy (“Bluetooth Smart” in 4.0)
— global 2.4 GHz, very low power, already in many phones
— popular in e-health applications
— 6LoWPAN for BTLE: draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle
waiting for BT-SIG
} Z-Wave (G.9959)
— Regional 900 MHz variants
— draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz
✔
channel assignment
Pre
tt
ym
uch
} DECT ULE (“Ultra Low Energy”)
coo
ked
— can use European cordless phone spectrum
— draft-mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule
Bac
k- B
urn
er
26

27. 6Lo: Bundle Internet Area standardization
in Constrained Node Networks
} 6Lo@ietf.org
} has just had its first WG meeting
} replacing 6LoWPAN WG
} work closely with 6man (IPv6 maintenance),
homenet (IPv6 home networking), dnssd
27

28. RPL: Routing for CN/N
} RFC 6550: Specialized routing protocol RPL
Me
– Rooted DAGs (directed acyclic graphs)
} redundancies in
the tree help cope
with churn
} “rank”: loop
avoidance
1
Every router
has map of
subtree
2
4
5
4
7
6
7
5
12
.g.
,E
TX
Root
3
3
:e
Mode: Only
root has map
of tree
1
3
tri
cs
} Non-Storing
Root
3
5
} Storing Mode:
20
3
2
4
5
4
7
3
6
7
28

29. RPL Route-over: Routing at Layer 3
Internet
} As we are used to in the
Internet
Router
— Alternative: L2 routing, mesh
networks, “mesh-under”
Local Server
} Advantage: can bring together
multiple subnets
— one or more constrained radio
technologies
Downstream
— use Ethernet, WiFi as backbones
LLN
Border Router (LBR
Backbone link
LBR
LBR
R
R
R
R
R
R
H
H
H
H
H
Router
Ups
Host
Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN)
29

30. (2)
The Application
CoAP
30

31. For which applications did
the Internet first scale massively?
} Remote Login
} E-Mail
} NetNews
} The Web
31

32. The elements of success
of the Web
} HTML
— uniform representation of documents
— (now moving forward to HTML5 with CSS, JavaScript)
} URIs
— uniform referents to data and services on the Web
} HTTP
— universal transfer protocol
— enables a distribution system of proxies and reverse proxies
32

33. Translating this to M2M
Ne
M2 w d
pre M s ata
} HTML
se em form
— uniform representation of documents
nta an a
tic ts:
t
— (now moving forward to HTML5 with CSS, JavaScript) io
n s s in
em ste
} URIs
an ad
— uniform referents to data and services on the Web
tic of
s
} HTTP
✔
— universal transfer protocol
— enables a distribution system of proxies and reverse proxies
33

34. Many.
If in doubt, use HTTP :-)
UDP [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793],
DCCP [RFC4340], SCTP [RFC4960],
and NORM [RFC5740]
IPv4, IPv6
tunneling technologies such as the Tunnel mode of IPsec, IP-in-IP, and
Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784]; circuit networks such as
MPLS [RFC4364], GMPLS, and ATM; local wireless (IEEE 802.11, 802.15.4,
or 802.16) networks and switched Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) networks.
IEEE, ITU
34

35. If
use
bt,
TP
HT
ou
nd
i
UDP [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793],
DCCP [RFC4340], SCTP [RFC4960],
and NORM [RFC5740]
IPv4, IPv6
tunneling technologies such as the Tunnel mode of IPsec, IP-in-IP, and
Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784]; circuit networks such as
MPLS [RFC4364], GMPLS, and ATM; local wireless (IEEE 802.11, 802.15.4,
or 802.16) networks and switched Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) networks.
IEEE, ITU
35

36. HTTP
ST
RE
If
se
t, u
ub
do [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793],
in UDP
DCCP [RFC4340], SCTP [RFC4960],
and NORM [RFC5740]
IPv4, IPv6
tunneling technologies such as the Tunnel mode of IPsec, IP-in-IP, and
Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784]; circuit networks such as
MPLS [RFC4364], GMPLS, and ATM; local wireless (IEEE 802.11, 802.15.4,
or 802.16) networks and switched Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) networks.
IEEE, ITU
36

37. ✗
Constrained Node/Networks
➔ Compressed HTTP?
} Saves some bytes
} Retains all the complexity
— lots of historical baggage
— still needs TCP below
} Adds the CPU requirements for compression
} Limited gain
— compression only takes you so far
37

38. „Make things
as simple as possible,
but not simpler.
Attributed to Albert Einstein
38

39. The Constrained
Application Protocol
CoAP
} implements HTTP’s REST model
— GET, PUT, DELETE, POST; media type model
} while avoiding most of the complexities of HTTP
} Simple protocol, datagram only (UDP, DTLS)
} 4-byte header, compact yet simple options encoding
} adds “observe”, a lean notification architecture
39

40. CoAP Examples
} GET coap://temp1.25b006.floor1.example.com/temperature
— ASCII string: 22.5
— could use JSON, e.g. as in draft-jennings-senml
} PUT coap://blue-lights.bu036.floor1.example.com/intensity
— ASCII string: 70 %
} GET coap://25b006.floor1.example.com/.well-known/core
— </temp>;n="TemperatureC",</light>;ct=41;n="LightLux"
— see RFC 6690 (CoRE link format)
More in draft-vanderstok-core-bc-05
see also draft-ietf-core-interfaces
40

41. Example Interchange
Option
Payload
C: CON + GET coap://server/resource
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-,-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 0 |
0
| GET = 0.01
|
MID=1234
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| +3 =3 |
6
|
"server" (6 Bytes) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| +8=11 |
8
|
"resource" (8 Bytes) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S: ACK, ct=application/cbor, payload: {“hlo”:“World”}
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-,-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 2 |
0
|Content = 2.05 |
MID=1234
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|+12=12 |
1
|
60
|
Content-Format = 60 (application/cbor)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1| A1 63 h l o 65 W o r l d (11 Bytes) ...
Payload Marker
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
41

42. Combining CoAP and HTTP
} CoAP is used
in constrained
environment
} CoAP and HTTP
share proxy model
based on REST
} Enables standard,
applicationindependent proxy
42

43. Proxying and caching
Source: 6lowpan.net
43

44. Constrained!RESTful!Environments (CoRE) Working Group
Drafts:
✔
• Constrained Application Protocol
draft-ietf-core-coap
• Observing Resources in CoAP
draft-ietf-core-observe
• Blockwise Transfers in CoAP
draft-ietf-core-block
• CoRE Link Format
draft-ietf-core-link-format
RFC 6690
✔
44

45. Data
Formats
Character-­‐
based
Document-­‐
Oriented
Data-­‐
Oriented
XML
Concise
Binary
EXI
JSON ???
45
Prof.
Carsten
Bormann,
cabo@tzi.org

46. Data Formats: CBOR
(Concise Binary Object Representation)
} JSON: Highly successful data model
— true/false/null; numbers, strings; arrays, maps (“objects”)
— Add binary data (byte strings)
— Provide tags for specific types (e.g., date/time)
} Add concise binary format
— Inspired by CoAP Option Coding, MessagePack
— Internet standards document: RFC 7049
46

47. Concise (Counted)
47
Streaming (Indefinite)

48. Data
Formats
Character-­‐
based
Document-­‐
Oriented
Data-­‐
Oriented
XML
Concise
Binary
EXI
JSON CBOR
48
Prof.
Carsten
Bormann,
cabo@tzi.org

49. Security is not optional!
} HTTP can use TLS (“SSL”)
} CoAP: Use DTLS 1.2
ity
ur
c
se 2-bit)
bit
— Add 6LoWPAN-GHC for efficiency
} Crypto: Move to ECC
— P-256 curve
— SHA-256
— AES-128
8-~ RSA 307
12
(
} To do:
— Commissioning models (Mother/Duckling, Mothership, …)
— Authorization format and workflow
— Performance fixes (DICE)
49

50. The next billions of nodes • Carsten Bormann • 2013-11-14
Disclaimer: Nobody speaks for the IETF
50
Prof.
Carsten
Bormann,
cabo@tzi.org