ICN
Internet Research Group Task Force (IRTF) C. Gundogan
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9139 TC. Schmidt
Intended status:
Category: Experimental HAW Hamburg
Expires: August 14, 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721 M. Waehlisch Wählisch
link-lab & FU Berlin
C. Scherb
C. Marxer
C. Tschudin
University of Basel
February 10,
November 2021
ICN Adaptation to LoWPAN Networks (ICN LoWPAN)
draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10
Abstract
This document defines a convergence layer for CCNx Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) and NDN Named Data Networking (NDN) over IEEE 802.15.4 LoWPAN networks.
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 6LoWPAN 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 ICN Information-Centric Network (ICN) chunks. In
its second part, the document defines stateless and stateful
compression schemes to improve efficiency on constrained links.
Stateless compression reduces TLV expressions to static header fields
for common use cases. Stateful compression schemes elide state states
local to the LoWPAN and replace names in data Data packets by short local
identifiers.
This document is a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
Research Group (ICNRG).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Research Task
Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. (IRTF). The list IRTF publishes the results of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts Internet-related
research and development activities. These results might not be
suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the
Information-Centric Networking Research Group of the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by
the IRSG are draft documents valid not candidates for a maximum any level of six months Internet Standard; see
Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 August 14, 2021.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9139.
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://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview of ICN LoWPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Link-Layer Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Stateless Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Stateful Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IEEE 802.15.4 Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. LoWPAN Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Dispatch Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Adaptation Layer Adaptation-Layer Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Space-efficient Space-Efficient Message Encoding for NDN . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. TLV Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Name TLV Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. Uncompressed Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.2. Compressed Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.3. Dispatch Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Data Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.1. Uncompressed Data Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.2. Compressed Data Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4.3. Dispatch Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Space-efficient Space-Efficient Message Encoding for CCNx . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1. TLV Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. Name TLV Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3. Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.1. Uncompressed Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.2. Compressed Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.3. Dispatch Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4. Content Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4.1. Uncompressed Content Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4.2. Compressed Content Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.3. Dispatch Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. Compressed Time Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Stateful Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.1. LoWPAN-local LoWPAN-Local State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.2. En-route En-Route State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.3. Integrating Stateful Header Compression . . . . . . . . . 37
9. ICN LoWPAN Constants and Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. Implementation Report and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.1. Preferred Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.2. Further Experimental Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12.1. Reserving Space in Updates to the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Type Field Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix A. Estimated Size Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.1. NDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.1.1. Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.1.2. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.2. CCNx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.2.1. Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.2.2. Content Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) has been identified as a promising
deployment area for Information Centric Networks Information-Centric Networking (ICN), as
infrastructureless access to content, resilient forwarding, and in-
network data replication demonstrated demonstrates notable advantages over the
traditional host-to-host approach on the Internet [NDN-EXP1], [NDN-EXP1]
[NDN-EXP2]. Recent studies [NDN-MAC] have shown that an appropriate
mapping to link layer link-layer technologies has a large impact on the
practical performance of an ICN. This will be even more relevant in
the context of IoT communication where nodes often exchange messages
via low-power wireless links under lossy conditions. In this memo,
we address the base adaptation of data chunks to such link layers for
the ICN flavors NDN [NDN] and CCNx [RFC8569], [RFC8569] [RFC8609].
The IEEE 802.15.4 [ieee802.15.4] link layer is used in low-power and
lossy networks (see "LLN" LLN in [RFC7228]), in which devices are typically battery-operated
battery operated and constrained in resources. Characteristics of
LLNs include an unreliable environment, low
bandwidth low-bandwidth transmissions,
and increased latencies. IEEE 802.15.4 admits a maximum physical 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
signatures, and content.
6LoWPAN [RFC4944], [RFC4944] [RFC6282] is a convergence layer that provides
frame formats, header compression compression, and adaptation layer adaptation-layer fragmentation
for IPv6 packets in IEEE 802.15.4 networks. The 6LoWPAN adaptation
introduces a dispatching framework that prepends further information
to 6LoWPAN packets, including a protocol identifier for payload and
meta information about fragmentation.
Prevalent Type-Length-Value (TLV) based packet formats based on Type-Length-Value (TLV), such as in
CCNx and NDN NDN, are designed to be generic and extensible. This leads
to header verbosity verbosity, which is inappropriate in constrained
environments of IEEE 802.15.4 links. This document presents ICN
LoWPAN, a convergence layer for IEEE 802.15.4 motivated by 6LoWPAN.
ICN LoWPAN compresses packet headers of CCNx CCNx, as well as NDN NDN, and
allows for an increased effective payload size per packet.
Additionally, reusing the dispatching framework defined by 6LoWPAN
enables compatibility between coexisting wireless deployments of
competing network technologies. This also allows to reuse of the
adaptation layer
adaptation-layer fragmentation scheme specified by 6LoWPAN for ICN
LoWPAN.
ICN LoWPAN defines a more space efficient 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 [RFC7228] devices [RFC7228] compared to
uncompressed ICN messages.
In a typical IoT scenario (see (Figure 1)), Figure 1), embedded devices are
interconnected via a quasi-stationary infrastructure using a border
router (BR) that connects the constrained LoWPAN network by some
Gateway
gateway with the public Internet. In ICN based ICN-based IoT networks, non-
local
nonlocal Interest and Data messages transparently travel through the
BR up and down between a Gateway gateway and the embedded devices situated in
the constrained LoWPAN.
|Gateway Services|
-------------------------
|
,--------,
| |
| BR |
| |
'--------'
LoWPAN
O O
O
O O embedded
O O O devices
O O
Figure 1: IoT Stub Network
The document has received fruitful reviews by members of the ICN
community and the research group (see Acknowledgments) 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The use of the term, "silently ignore" is not defined in RFC 2119.
However, the term is used in this document
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and can be similarly
construed. 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 Low-Power Wireless
Personal Area Network
LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network
CCNx: Content-Centric Networking Architecture
NDN: Named Data Networking Architecture
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.
Device 1 Device 2
,------------------, Router ,------------------,
| Application . | __________________ | ,-> Application |
|----------------|-| | NDN / CCNx | |-|----------------|
| NDN / CCNx | | | ,--------------, | | | NDN / CCNx |
|----------------|-| |-|--------------|-| |-|----------------|
| ICN LoWPAN | | | | ICN LoWPAN | | | | ICN LoWPAN |
|----------------|-| |-|--------------|-| |-|----------------|
| Link-Layer Link Layer | | | | Link-Layer Link Layer | | | | Link-Layer Link Layer |
'----------------|-' '-|--------------|-' '-|----------------'
'--------' '---------'
Figure 2: ICN LoWPAN convergence layer Convergence Layer for IEEE 802.15.4
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 link layers with small MTUs. The
stateless compression does not require pre-configuration preconfiguration of a global
state.
The CCNx and NDN header formats are composed of Type-Length-Value
(TLV) fields to encode header data. The advantage of TLVs is its
native support of variably structured data. The main disadvantage of
TLVs is the verbosity that results from storing the type and length
of the encoded data.
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 Type and
the length
Length fields are removed. The third TLV represents a boolean TLV
(e.g., the MustBeFresh selector in NDN) for which the type,
length Type, Length,
and the value Value fields are elided.
Uncompressed:
Variable-length TLV Fixed-length TLV Boolean TLV
,-----------------------,-----------------------,-------------,
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
| TYP | LEN | VAL | TYP | LEN | VAL | TYP | LEN |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+
Compressed:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Bit field Field
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |
,--' '----, '- Boolean Value
| |
+-------+-------+-------+
| LEN | VAL | VAL |
+-------+-------+-------+
'---------------'-------'
Var-len Value Fixed-len Value
Figure 3: Compression using Using a compact bit field - bits encode Compact Bit Field -- Bits Encode
the
inclusion Inclusion of TLVs. TLVs
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 manuscript. document.
3.3. Stateful Header Compression
ICN LoWPAN further employs two orthogonal orthogonal, stateful compression
schemes for packet size reductions reductions, which are defined in Section 8.
These mechanisms rely on shared contexts that are either distributed
and maintained in the entire LoWPAN, LoWPAN or are generated on-demand on demand hop-
wise on a particular Interest-data 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 payload, and each encapsulation header
is identified by a dispatch type.
[RFC8025] further specifies dispatch pages Pages to switch between
different contexts. When a LoWPAN parser encounters a "Page switch" Page switch
LoWPAN encapsulation header, then all following encapsulation headers are
interpreted by using a dispatch table table, as specified by the "Page
switch" header. Page
switch header. Pages 0 and page 1 are reserved for 6LoWPAN. This
document uses page TBD1 ("1111 TBD1 (0xFTBD1)") Page 14 (1111 1110 (0xFE)) for ICN LoWPAN.
The base dispatch format (Figure 4) is used and extended by CCNx and
NDN in Section Sections 5 and Section 6.
0 1 2 3 ...
+---+---+-----------
+---+---+---+---+---
| C 0 | P | M |
+---+---+----------- C |
+---+---+---+---+---
Figure 4: Base dispatch format Dispatch Format for ICN LoWPAN
C: Compression
0: The message is uncompressed.
1: The message is compressed.
P: Protocol
0: The included protocol is NDN.
1: The included protocol is CCNx.
M: Message Type
0: The payload contains an Interest message.
1: The payload contains a Data message.
C: Compression
0: The message is uncompressed.
1: The message is compressed.
ICN LoWPAN frames with compressed CCNx and NDN messages (C=1) use the
extended dispatch format in Figure 5.
0 1 2 3 4 ...
+---+---+---+---+---+--- ...
+---+---+---+---+...+---+---+
| 1 0 | P | M | 1 | |CID|EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---
+---+---+---+---+...+---+---+
Figure 5: Extended dispatch format Dispatch Format for compressed Compressed ICN LoWPAN
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 | RFC4944 Disp.| Page | ICN LoWPAN Disp.| Payl. /
+------...------+------...-----+--------+-------...-------+-----...
Figure 6: LoWPAN Encapsulation with ICN-LoWPAN ICN LoWPAN
IEEE 802.15.4: The IEEE 802.15.4 header.
RFC4944 Disp.: Optional additional dispatches defined in Section 5.1
of [RFC4944] [RFC4944].
Page: Page Switch. TBD1 switch. 14 for ICN LoWPAN.
ICN LoWPAN: Dispatches as defined in Section Sections 5 and Section 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.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - |EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 7: Base format Format for dispatch extensions. Dispatch Extensions
EXT: Extension
0: No other extension byte follows.
1: A further extension byte follows.
Extension bytes are numbered according to their order. Future
documents MUST follow the naming scheme "EXT_0, 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, as, e.g., as outlined in [I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]. [ICNRG-FLIC].
4.2. Adaptation Layer Adaptation-Layer Fragmentation
Small payload sizes in the LoWPAN require fragmentation for various
network layers. Therefore, Section 5.3 of [RFC4944] defines a
protocol-independent fragmentation dispatch type, a fragmentation
header for the first fragment, and a separate fragmentation header
for subsequent fragments. ICN LoWPAN adopts this fragmentation
handling of [RFC4944].
The Fragmentation 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.
+------...------+----...----+--------+------...-------+--------...
| IEEE 802.15.4 | Frag. 1st | Page | ICN LoWPAN | Payload /
+------...------+----...----+--------+------...-------+--------...
+------...------+----...----+--------...
| IEEE 802.15.4 | Frag. 2nd | Payload /
+------...------+----...----+--------...
.
.
.
+------...------+----...----+--------...
| IEEE 802.15.4 | Frag. Nth | Payload /
+------...------+----...----+--------...
Figure 8: Fragmentation scheme Scheme
+------...------+--------+------...-------+--------...
| IEEE 802.15.4 | Page | ICN LoWPAN | Payload /
+------...------+--------+------...-------+--------...
Figure 9: Reassembled ICN LoWPAN frame Frame
The 6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding (6FF) (6LFF) [RFC8930] is an alternative
approach that enables forwarding of fragments without reassembling
packets on every intermediate hop. By reusing the 6LoWPAN
dispatching framework, 6FF 6LFF integrates into ICN LoWPAN as seamless seamlessly
as the conventional hop-wise fragmentation. Experimental However, experimental
evaluations
[SFR-ICNLOWPAN], however, [SFR-ICNLOWPAN] suggest that a more refined more-refined integration
can increase the cache utilization of forwarders on a request path.
5. Space-efficient 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 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", 253, then that number is
encoded into the actual type Type or length Length field. If the number is
greater or equals "253" 253 and fits into 2 bytes, then the type Type or
length Length
field is set to "253" 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 Type or length Length field is
set to "254" 254 and the number is encoded in the subsequent 4 bytes in
network byte order. For larger numbers, the
type Type or length Length field is
set to "255" 255 and the number is encoded in the subsequent 8 bytes in
network byte order.
In this specification, compressed NDN TLVs encode type Type and length Length
fields using self-delimiting numeric values (SDNVs) [RFC6256]
commonly known from DTN 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.
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
+==========+==========================+==========================+
| Value | NDN TLV encoding Encoding | SDNV encoding Encoding |
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
+==========+==========================+==========================+
| 0 | 0x00 | 0x00 |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 127 | 0x7F | 0x7F |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 128 | 0x80 | 0x81 0x00 |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 253 | 0xFD 0x00 0xFD | 0x81 0x7D |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^14 - 1 | 0xFD 0x3F 0xFF | 0xFF 0x7F |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^14 | 0xFD 0x40 0x00 | 0x81 0x80 0x00 |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^16 | 0xFE 0x00 0x01 0x00 0x00 | 0x84 0x80 0x00 |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^21 - 1 | 0xFE 0x00 0x1F 0xFF 0xFF | 0xFF 0xFF 0x7F |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^21 | 0xFE 0x00 0x20 0x00 0x00 | 0x81 0x80 0x80 0x00 |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^28 - 1 | 0xFE 0x0F 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF | 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0x7F |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^28 | 0xFE 0x1F 0x00 0x00 0x00 | 0x81 0x80 0x80 0x80 0x00 |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^32 | 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 | 0x90 0x80 0x80 0x80 0x00 |
| | 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 | |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^35 - 1 | 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x07 | 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0x7F |
| | 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF | |
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 2^35 | 0xFF 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x08 | 0x81 0x80 0x80 0x80 0x80 |
| | 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 | 0x00 |
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
+----------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
Table 1: NDN TLV encoding compared Encoding Compared to SDNVs. SDNVs
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 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 Length field of an encoded
NameComponent is either 0x00 for a name with an even number of
components,
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,
bytes but allows for an unlimited number of components. An example
for this encoding is presented in Figure 10.
Name: /HAW/Room/481/Humid/99
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 0 1 1|0 1 0 0| H | A | W |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| R | o | o | m |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 1 1|0 1 0 1| 4 | 8 | 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| H | u | m | i |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| d |0 0 1 0|0 0 0 0| 9 | 9 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Name TLV compression Compression for /HAW/Room/481/Humid/99
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 flag to "0" C, P, and the P as well as the M flag flags to "0" 0 (Figure 11). The
Interest message is handed to the NDN network stack without
modifications.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 11: Dispatch format Format for uncompressed Uncompressed NDN Interest messages Messages
5.3.2. Compressed Interest Messages
The compressed Interest message uses the extended dispatch format
(Figure 5) and sets the C flag to "1", 1 and the P flag to "0" and the M
flag flags to "0". 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_NDN_HOPLIMIT prior
to the compression.
In the default use case, the Interest message is compressed with the
following minimal rule set:
1. The "Type" Type field of the outermost MessageType TLV is removed.
2. The Name TLV is compressed according to Section 5.2. For this,
all NameComponents are expected to be of type
GenericNameComponent with a length greater than 0. An
ImplicitSha256DigestComponent or ParametersSha256DigestComponent
MAY appear at the end of the name. In any other case, the
message MUST be sent uncompressed.
3. The Nonce TLV and InterestLifetime TLV are moved to the end of
the compressed Interest Interest, as illustrated in Figure 12. The
InterestLifetime is encoded as described in Section 7. On
decompression, this encoding may yield an Interestlifetime InterestLifetime that
is smaller than the original value.
4. The Type and Length fields of Nonce TLV, HopLimit TLV TLV, and
InterestLifetime TLV are elided. The Nonce value has a length of
4 bytes bytes, and the HopLimit value has a length of 1 byte. The
compressed InterestLifetime (Section 7) has a length of 1 byte.
The presence of a Nonce TLV and InterestLifetime TLV is deduced
from the remaining length to parse. A remaining length of "1" 1
indicates the presence of an InerestLifetime, InterestLifetime, a length of "4" 4
indicates the presence of a nonce, and a length of "5" 5 indicates
the presence of both TLVs.
The compressed NDN LoWPAN Interest message is visualized in
Figure 12.
T = Type, L = Length, V = Value
Lc = Compressed Length, Vc = Compressed Value
: = optional field, | = mandatory field
+---------+---------+ +---------+
| Msg T | Msg L | | Msg Lc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
| Name T | Name L | Name V | | Name Vc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: CBPfx T : CBPfx L : : FWDH Lc : FWDH Vc :
+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: MBFr T : MBFr L : | HPL V |
+---------+---------+---------+ ==> +---------+---------+
: FWDH T : FWDH L : FWDH V : : APM Lc : APM Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: NONCE T : NONCE L : NONCE V : : NONCE V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
: ILT T : ILT L : ILT V : : ILT Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
: HPL T : HPL L : HPL V :
+---------+---------+---------+
: APM T : APM L : APM V :
+---------+---------+---------+
Figure 12: Compression of NDN LoWPAN Interest Message
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in
Figure 13.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 0 | 0 | 0 |CID|EXT|PFX|FRE|FWD|APM|DIG| RSV | 1 |PFX|FRE|FWD|APM|DIG| RSV |CID|EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 13: Dispatch format Format for compressed Compressed NDN Interest messages
CID: Context Identifier See Figure 5.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: Extension byte "EXT_0" follows immediately. See
Section 5.3.3. Messages
PFX: CanBePrefix TLV
0: The uncompressed message does not include a CanBePrefix TLV.
1: The uncompressed message does include a CanBePrefix TLV and
is removed from the compressed message.
FRE: MustBeFresh TLV
0: The uncompressed message does not include a MustBeFresh TLV.
1: The uncompressed message does include a MustBeFresh TLV and
is removed from the compressed message.
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: ApplicationParameters TLV
0: The uncompressed message does not include an
ApplicationParameters TLV.
1: The uncompressed message does include an
ApplicationParameters TLV. The Type field is removed from
the compressed message.
DIG: ImplicitSha256DigestComponent TLV
0: The name does not include an ImplicitSha256DigestComponent as
the last TLV.
1: The name does include an ImplicitSha256DigestComponent as the
last TLV. The Type and Length fields are omitted.
RSV: Reserved
Must be set to 0.
CID: Context Identifier
See Figure 5.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: Extension byte EXT_0 follows immediately. See Section 5.3.3.
5.3.3. Dispatch Extension
The "EXT_0" EXT_0 byte follows the description in Section 4.1.1 and is
illustrated in Figure 14.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| NCS | RSV |EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 14: EXT_0 format Format
NCS: Name Compression Strategy
00: Names are compressed with the default name compression
strategy (see Section 5.2).
01: Reserved.
10: Reserved.
11: Reserved.
RSV: Reserved
Must be set to 0.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: A further extension byte follows immediately.
5.4. Data Messages
5.4.1. Uncompressed Data Messages
An uncompressed Data message uses the base dispatch format and sets
the C flag to "0", the and P flag flags to "0" 0 and the M flag to "1" 1 (Figure 15). The Data
message is handed to the NDN network stack without modifications.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 15: Dispatch format Format for uncompressed Uncompressed NDN Data messages Messages
5.4.2. Compressed Data Messages
The compressed Data message uses the extended dispatch format
(Figure 5) and sets the C as well as the and M flags to "1". 1. The P flag is set to "0". 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:
1. The "Type" Type field of the outermost MessageType TLV is removed.
2. The Name TLV is compressed according to Section 5.2. For this,
all NameComponents are expected to be of type
GenericNameComponent and to have a length greater than 0. In any
other case, the message MUST be sent uncompressed.
3. The MetaInfo TLV Type and Length fields are elided from the
compressed Data message.
4. The FreshnessPeriod TLV MUST be moved to the end of the
compressed Data message. Type and Length fields are elided elided, and
the value is encoded as described in Section 7 as a 1-byte time-
code. If the freshness period is not a valid time-value, then
the message MUST be sent uncompressed in order to preserve the
security envelope of the Data message. The presence of a
FreshnessPeriod TLV is deduced from the remaining one byte one-byte length
to parse.
5. The Type fields of the SignatureInfo TLV, SignatureType TLV TLV, and
SignatureValue TLV are removed.
The compressed NDN LoWPAN Data message is visualized in Figure 16.
T = Type, L = Length, V = Value
Lc = Compressed Length, Vc = Compressed Value
: = optional field, | = mandatory field
+---------+---------+ +---------+
| Msg T | Msg L | | Msg Lc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
| Name T | Name L | Name V | | Name Vc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: Meta T : Meta L : : CTyp Lc : CType V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: CTyp T : CTyp L : CTyp V : : FBID V :
+---------+---------+---------+ ==> +---------+---------+
: FrPr T : FrPr L : FrPr V : : CONT Lc : CONT V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: FBID T : FBID L : FBID V : | Sig Lc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: CONT T : CONT L : CONT V : | SInf Lc | SInf Vc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
| Sig T | Sig L | | SVal Lc | SVal Vc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
| SInf T | SInf L | SInf V | : FrPr Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
| SVal T | SVal L | SVal V |
+---------+---------+---------+
Figure 16: Compression of NDN LoWPAN Data Message
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in
Figure 17.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 0 | 0 | 1 |CID|EXT|FBI|CON|KLO| RSV | 1 |FBI|CON|KLO| RSV |CID|EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 17: Dispatch format Format for compressed Compressed NDN Data messages
CID: Context Identifier See Figure 5.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: Extension byte "EXT_0" follows immediately. See
Section 5.4.3. Messages
FBI: FinalBlockId TLV
0: The uncompressed message does not include a FinalBlockId TLV.
1: The uncompressed message does include a FinalBlockId 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
0: The uncompressed message does not include a ContentType TLV.
1: The uncompressed message does include a ContentType TLV. The
Type field is removed from the compressed message.
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_0 follows immediately. See Section 5.4.3.
5.4.3. Dispatch Extension
The "EXT_0" EXT_0 byte follows the description in Section 4.1.1 and is
illustrated in Figure 18.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| NCS | RSV |EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 18: EXT_0 format Format
NCS: Name Compression Strategy
00: Names are compressed with the default name compression
strategy (see Section 5.2).
01: Reserved.
10: Reserved.
11: Reserved.
RSV: Reserved
Must be set to 0.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: A further extension byte follows immediately.
6. Space-efficient 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 space-
efficient encoding described in Section 5.1. Hence 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 as well as the and M flag flags to "0". 0. The P flag is set to "1" 1
(Figure 19). The Interest message is handed to the CCNx network
stack without modifications.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 19: Dispatch format Format for uncompressed Uncompressed CCNx Interest messages Messages
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". 1. The M flag is set to
"0". 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:
1. The version is elided from the fixed header and assumed to be 1.
2. The Type and Length fields of the CCNx Message TLV are elided and
are obtained from the Fixed Header fixed header on decompression.
The compressed CCNx LoWPAN Interest message is visualized in
Figure 20.
T = Type, L = Length, V = Value
Lc = Compressed Length, Vc = Compressed Value
: = optional field, | = mandatory field
+-----------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Uncompr. Fixed Header | | Compr. Fixed Header |
+-----------------------------+ +-------------------------+
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
: ILT T : ILT L : ILT V : : ILT Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
: MSGH T : MSGH L : MSGH V : : MSGH Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
+---------+---------+ +---------+
| MSGT T | MSGT L | | Name Vc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
| Name T | Name L | Name V | ==> : KIDR Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
: KIDR T : KIDR L : KIDR V : : OBHR Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: OBHR T : OBHR L : OBHR V : : PAYL Lc : PAYL V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: PAYL T : PAYL L : PAYL V : : VALG Lc : VALG Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: VALG T : VALG L : VALG V : : VPAY Lc : VPAY V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: VPAY T : VPAY L : VPAY V :
+---------+---------+---------+
Figure 20: Compression of CCNx LoWPAN Interest Message
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in
Figure 21.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 0 | 1 | 0 |CID|EXT|VER|FLG|PTY|HPL|FRS|PAY|ILT|MGH|KIR|CHR|VAL| | 1 |FLG|PTY|HPL|FRS|PAY|ILT|MGH|KIR|CHR|VAL|CID|EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 21: Dispatch format Format for compressed Compressed CCNx Interest messages
CID: Context Identifier See Figure 5.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: Extension byte "EXT_0" follows immediately. See
Section 6.3.3.
VER: CCNx protocol version in the fixed header
0: The Version field equals 1 and is removed from the fixed
header.
1: The Version field appears in the fixed header. Messages
FLG: Flags field in the fixed header
0: The Flags field equals 0 and is removed from the Interest
message.
1: The Flags field appears in the fixed header.
PTY: PacketType field in the fixed header
0: The PacketType field is elided and assumed to be
"PT_INTEREST". PT_INTEREST.
1: The PacketType field is elided and assumed to be
"PT_RETURN". PT_RETURN.
HPL: HopLimit field in the fixed header
0: The HopLimit field appears in the fixed header.
1: The HopLimit field is elided and assumed to be "1". 1.
FRS: Reserved field in the fixed header
0: The Reserved field appears in the fixed header.
1: The Reserved field is elided and assumed to be "0". 0.
PAY: Optional Payload TLV
0: The Payload TLV is absent.
1: The Payload TLV is present present, and the type Type field is elided.
ILT: Optional Hop-By-Hop hop-by-hop InterestLifetime TLV
See Section 6.3.2.1 for further details on the ordering of hop-by-hop hop-
by-hop TLVs.
0: No InterestLifetime TLV is present in the Interest message.
1: An InterestLifetime TLV is present with a fixed length of 1
byte and is encoded as described in Section 7. The
type Type and length
Length fields are elided.
MGH: Optional Hop-By-Hop hop-by-hop MessageHash TLV
See Section 6.3.2.1 for further details on the ordering of hop-by-hop 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.
0: The MessageHash TLV is absent.
1: A T_SHA-256 TLV is present present, and the type as well as the
length Type and Length fields
are removed. The length Length field is assumed to represent 32
bytes. The outer Message Hash TLV is omitted.
KIR: Optional KeyIdRestriction TLV
This TLV is expected to contain a T_SHA-256 TLV. If another hash
is contained, then the Interest MUST be sent uncompressed.
0: The KeyIdRestriction TLV is absent.
1: A T_SHA-256 TLV is present present, and the type as well as the
length Type and Length fields
are removed. The length Length field is assumed to represent 32
bytes. The outer KeyIdRestriction TLV is omitted.
CHR: Optional ContentObjectHashRestriction TLV
This TLV is expected to contain a T_SHA-256 TLV. If another hash
is contained, then the Interest MUST be sent uncompressed.
0: The ContentObjectHashRestriction TLV is absent.
1: A T_SHA-256 TLV is present present, and the type as well as the
length Type and Length fields
are removed. The length Length field is assumed to represent 32
bytes. The outer ContentObjectHashRestriction TLV is
omitted.
VAL: Optional ValidationAlgorithm and ValidationPayload TLVs
0: No validation related validation-related TLVs are present in the Interest
message.
1: Validation related Validation-related TLVs are present in the Interest message.
An additional byte follows immediately that handles validation related
validation-related TLV compressions and is described in
Section 6.3.2.2.
CID: Context Identifier
See Figure 5.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: Extension byte EXT_0 follows immediately. See Section 6.3.3.
6.3.2.1. Hop-By-Hop Header TLVs Compression
Hop-By-Hop Header
Hop-by-hop header TLVs are unordered. For an Interest message, two
optional Hop-By-Hop Header hop-by-hop header TLVs are defined in [RFC8609], but several
more can be defined in higher level higher-level specifications. For the
compression specified in the previous section, the Hop-By-Hop hop-by-hop TLVs
are ordered as follows:
1. Interest Lifetime InterestLifetime TLV
2. Message Hash TLV
Note: Other Hop-By-Hop Header hop-by-hop header TLVs than those two remain uncompressed
in the encoded message message, and they appear in the same order as in the
original message, message but after the Interest Lifetime InterestLifetime TLV and Message Hash
TLV.
6.3.2.2. Validation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ValidationAlg | KeyID | RSV |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Figure 22: Dispatch for Interset Interest Validations
ValidationALg:
ValidationAlg: Optional ValidationAlgorithm TLV
0000: An uncompressed ValidationAlgorithm TLV is included.
0001: A T_CRC32C ValidationAlgorithm TLV is assumed, but no
ValidationAlgorithm TLV is included.
0010: A T_CRC32C ValidationAlgorithm TLV is assumed, but no
ValidationAlgorithm TLV is included. Additionally, a
Sigtime TLV is inlined without a type Type and a length Length field.
0011: A T_HMAC-SHA256 ValidationAlgorithm TLV is assumed, but
no ValidationAlgorithm TLV is included.
0100: A T_HMAC-SHA256 ValidationAlgorithm TLV is assumed, but
no ValidationAlgorithm TLV is included. Additionally, a
Sigtime TLV is inlined without a type Type and a length 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 ValidationAlgorithm TLV
00: The KeyId KeyID TLV is absent.
01: The KeyId KeyID TLV is present and uncompressed.
10: A T_SHA-256 TLV is present present, and the type field as well as
the length Type and Length fields
are removed. The length Length field is assumed to represent 32
bytes. The outer KeyId KeyID TLV is omitted.
11: A T_SHA-512 TLV is present present, and the type field as well as
the length Type and Length fields
are removed. The length Length field is assumed to represent 64
bytes. The outer KeyId KeyID TLV is omitted.
RSV: Reserved
Must be set to 0.
The ValidationPayload TLV is present if the ValidationAlgorithm TLV
is present. The type Type field is omitted.
6.3.3. Dispatch Extension
The "EXT_0" EXT_0 byte follows the description in Section 4.1.1 and is
illustrated in Figure 23.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| NCS | RSV |EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 23: EXT_0 format Format
NCS: Name Compression Strategy
00: Names are compressed with the default name compression
strategy (see Section 5.2).
01: Reserved.
10: Reserved.
11: Reserved.
RSV: Reserved
Must be set to 0.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: A further extension byte follows immediately.
6.4. Content Objects
6.4.1. Uncompressed Content Objects
An uncompressed Content object Object uses the base dispatch format (see
Figure 4) and sets the C flag to "0", 0 and the P and M flags to "1" 1
(Figure 24). The Content object Object is handed to the CCNx network stack
without modifications.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 24: Dispatch format Format for uncompressed Uncompressed CCNx Content objects Objects
6.4.2. Compressed Content Objects
The compressed Content object Object uses the extended dispatch format
(Figure 5) and sets the C, P, as well as the and M flag flags to "1". 1. If a Content object Object
contains TLVs that are not mentioned in the following compression
rules, then this message MUST be sent uncompressed.
By default, the Content object Object is compressed with the following base
rule set:
1. The version is elided from the fixed header and assumed to be 1.
2. The PacketType field is elided from the Fixed Header.
2. fixed header.
3. The Type and Length fields of the CCNx Message TLV are elided and
are obtained from the Fixed Header fixed header on decompression.
The compressed CCNx LoWPAN Data message is visualized in Figure 25.
T = Type, L = Length, V = Value
Lc = Compressed Length, Vc = Compressed Value
: = optional field, | = mandatory field
+-----------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Uncompr. Fixed Header | | Compr. Fixed Header |
+-----------------------------+ +-------------------------+
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
: RCT T : RCT L : RCT V : : RCT Vc :
+---------+---------+------.--+ +---------+
: MSGH T : MSGH L : MSGH V : : MSGH Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
+---------+---------+ +---------+
| MSGT T | MSGT L | | Name Vc |
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+
| Name T | Name L | Name V | ==> : EXPT Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: PTYP T : PTYP L : PTYP V : : PAYL Lc : PAYL V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: EXPT T : EXPT L : EXPT V : : VALG Lc : VALG Vc :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: PAYL T : PAYL L : PAYL V : : VPAY Lc : VPAY V :
+---------+---------+---------+ +---------+---------+
: VALG T : VALG L : VALG V :
+---------+---------+---------+
: VPAY T : VPAY L : VPAY V :
+---------+---------+---------+
Figure 25: Compression of CCNx LoWPAN Data Message
Further TLV compression is indicated by the ICN LoWPAN dispatch in
Figure 26.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |CID|EXT|VER|FLG|FRS|PAY|RCT|MGH| |FLG|FRS|PAY|RCT|MGH| PLTYP |EXP|VAL|RSV| |EXP|VAL|RSV|CID|EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 26: Dispatch format Format for compressed Compressed CCNx Content objects
CID: Context Identifier See Figure 5.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: Extension byte "EXT_0" follows immediately. See
Section 6.4.3.
VER: CCNx protocol version in the fixed header
0: The Version field equals 1 and is removed from the fixed
header.
1: The Version field appears in the fixed header. Objects
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 RecommendedCacheTime hop-by-hop Recommended Cache Time TLV
0: The Recommended Cache Time TLV is absent.
1: The Recommended Cache Time TLV is present present, and the type as
well as the length Type and
Length fields are elided.
MGH: Optional Hop-By-Hop hop-by-hop MessageHash TLV
See Section 6.4.2.1 for further details on the ordering of hop-by-hop 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.
0: The MessageHash TLV is absent.
1: A T_SHA-256 TLV is present present, and the type as well as the
length Type and Length fields
are removed. The length Length field is assumed to represent 32
bytes. The outer Message Hash TLV is omitted.
PLTYP: Optional PayloadType TLV
00: The PayloadType TLV is absent.
01: The PayloadType TLV is absent absent, and T_PAYLOADTYPE_DATA is
assumed.
10: The PayloadType TLV is absent absent, and T_PAYLOADTYPE_KEY is
assumed.
11: The PayloadType TLV is present and uncompressed.
EXP: Optional ExpiryTime TLV
0: The ExpiryTime TLV is absent.
1: The ExpiryTime TLV is present present, and the type as well as the
length Type and Length fields
are elided.
VAL: Optional ValidationAlgorithm and ValidationPayload TLVs
See Sec
tion 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_0 follows immediately. See Section 6.4.3.
6.4.2.1. Hop-By-Hop Header TLVs Compression
Hop-By-Hop Header
Hop-by-hop header TLVs are unordered. For a Content Object message,
two optional Hop-By-Hop Header hop-by-hop header TLVs are defined in [RFC8609], but
several more can be defined in higher level higher-level specifications. For the
compression specified in the previous section, the Hop-By-Hop hop-by-hop TLVs
are ordered as follows:
1. Recommended Cache Time TLV
2. Message Hash TLV
Note: Other Hop-By-Hop Header hop-by-hop header TLVs than those two remain uncompressed
in the encoded message message, and they appear in the same order as in the
original message, message but after the Recommended Cache Time TLV and Message
Hash TLV.
6.4.3. Dispatch Extension
The "EXT_0" EXT_0 byte follows the description in Section 4.1.1 and is
illustrated in Figure 27.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| NCS | RSV |EXT|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 27: EXT_0 format Format
NCS: Name Compression Strategy
00: Names are compressed with the default name compression
strategy (see Section 5.2).
01: Reserved.
10: Reserved.
11: Reserved.
RSV: Reserved
Must be set to 0.
EXT: Extension
0: No extension byte follows.
1: A further extension byte follows immediately.
7. Compressed Time Encoding
This document adopts the 8-bit compact time representation for
relative time values time-values described in Section 5 of [RFC5497] with the
constant factor "C" C set to "C C := 1/32". 1/32.
Valid time offsets in CCNx and NDN reach 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; mantissa, b := exponent):
Subnormal (b == 0): (0 + a/8) * 2 * C
Normalized (b > 0): (1 + a/8) * 2^b * C (see [RFC5497])
This configuration allows for the following ranges:
o
* Minimum subnormal number: 0 seconds
o
* 2nd minimum subnormal number: ~0.007812 seconds
o
* Maximum subnormal number: ~0.054688 seconds
o
* Minimum normalized number: ~0.062500 seconds
o
* 2nd minimum normalized number: ~0.070312 seconds
o
* Maximum normalized number: ~3.99 years
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 Interest-Data exchange may be removed from ICN stateful
forwarding on a hop-by-hop bases basis and memorized in en-route state
tables.
8.1. LoWPAN-local LoWPAN-Local State
A context identifier 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.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| X | ContextID |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 28: Context Identifier. Identifier
The 7-bit ContextID is a locally-scoped locally scoped unique identifier that
represents the contextual state shared between the sender and
receiver of the corresponding frame (see Figure 28). If set set, the
most significant bit indicates the presence of another, subsequent
ContextID byte (see Figure 33).
Context
The context state shared between senders and receivers is removed
from the compressed packet prior to sending, 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 En-Route State
In CCNx and NDN, Name TLVs are included in Interest messages, and
they return in data Data messages. Returning Name TLVs either equal the
original Name TLV, TLV or they 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 scope,
as shown in Figure 29.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| X | HopID |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 29: Context Identifier as HopID. HopID
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 by a HopID (without en-route
compression) MUST invalidate the HopID by setting all ID-bits ID bits to
zero.
While an Interest is traversing, a forwarder generates an ephemeral
HopID that is tied to a PIT 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).
PIT of B PIT Extension PIT of C PIT Extension
+--------+------++------+------+ +--------+------++------+------+
| Prefix | Face || HIDi | HIDo | | Prefix | Face || HIDi | HIDo |
+========+======++======+======+ +========+======++======+======+
| /p0 | F_A || h_A | h_B | | /p0 | F_A || h_A | |
+--------+------++------+------+ +--------+------++------+------+
^ | ^
store | '----------------------, ,---' store
| send v |
,---, /p0, h_A ,---, /p0, h_B ,---,
| A | ------------------------> | B | ------------------------> | C |
'---' '---' '---'
Figure 30: Setting compression state en-route (Interest). Compression State En-Route (Interest)
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 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).
PIT of B PIT Extension PIT of C PIT Extension
+--------+------++------+------+ +--------+------++------+------+
| Prefix | Face || HIDi | HIDo | | Prefix | Face || HIDi | HIDo |
+========+======++======+======+ +========+======++======+======+
| /p0 | F_A || h_A | h_B | | /p0 | F_A || h_A | |
+--------+------++------+------+ +--------+------++------+------+
| ^ |
send | '----------------------, ,---' send
v match | v
,---, h_A ,---, h_B ,---,
| A | <------------------------ | B | <------------------------ | C |
'---' '---' '---'
Figure 31: Eliding Name TLVs using en-route state (data). Using En-Route State (Data)
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 byte, as shown in
Figure 32.
...-------+--------+-------...-------+--...-+-------...
/ ... | Page | ICN LoWPAN Disp.| CIDs | Payload /
...-------+--------+-------...-------+--...-+-------...
Figure 32: LoWPAN Encapsulation with ICN LoWPAN and CIDs
Multiple CIDs are chained together, with the most significant bit
indicating the presence of a subsequent CID (Figure 33). This allows
to use multiple shared contexts in compressed messages.
The HopID is always included as the very first CID.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| CID / HopID | --> |1| CID | --> |0| CID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 33: Chaining of context identifiers. Context Identifiers
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
LoWPAN with varying configurations has been performed in [ICNLOWPAN].
Energy profilings profiling and processing time measurements indicate
significant energy savings, while 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:
o
* Signed time offsets compress as compress, per Section 7 7, without the need for
rounding.
o Contextual
* The contextual state (e.g., prefixes) is distributed, distributed such that
long names can be elided from Interest and data Data messages.
o
* Frequently used TLV type numbers for CCNx and NDN stay in the
lower range (< 255).
Name components are of GenericNameComponent type GenericNameComponent and are limited to a
length of 15 bytes to enable compression for all messages.
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:
o
* The name compression scheme (Section 5.2) is optimized for short
name components of GenericNameComponent type. type GenericNameComponent. An empirical study
on name lengths in different deployments of selected use cases,
such as smart home, smart city, and industrial IoT can provide
meaningful reports on necessary name component types and lengths.
A conclusive outcome helps to understand whether and how extension
mechanisms are needed (Section 5.3.3). As a preliminary analysis,
[ICNLOWPAN] investigates the effectiveness of the proposed
compression scheme with URLs obtained from the WWW. Studies on
CoAP [RFC7252]
deployments of Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252]
can offer additional insights on naming schemes in the IoT.
o
* The fragmentation scheme (Section 4.2) inherited from 6LoWPAN
allows for a transparent, hop-wise reassembly of CCNx or NDN
packets. Fragment forwarding [RFC8930] with selective fragment
recovery [RFC8931] can improve the end-to-end latency and
reliability,
reliability while it reduces buffer requirements on forwarders.
Initial evaluations ([SFR-ICNLOWPAN]) [SFR-ICNLOWPAN] show that a naive integration
of these upcoming fragmentation features into ICN LoWPAN renders
the hop-wise content replication inoperative, since Interest and data
Data messages are reassembled end-to-end. More deployment
experiences are necessary to gauge the feasibility of different
fragmentation schemes in ICN LoWPAN.
o Context
* The context state (Section 8.1) holds information that is shared
between a set of devices in a LoWPAN. Fixed name prefixes and
suffixes are good candidates to be distributed to all nodes in
order to elide them from request and response messages. More
experience and a deeper inspection of currently available and
upcoming protocol features is necessary to identify other protocol
fields.
o
* The distribution and synchronization of the contextual state can
potentially be adopted from Section 7.2 of [RFC6775], [RFC6775] but requires
further evaluations. While 6LoWPAN uses the Neighbor Discovery
protocol to disseminate state, CCNx and NDN deployments are
missing out on a standard mechanism to bootstrap and manage
configurations.
o
* The stateful en-route compression (Section 8.2) supports a limited
number of 127 distinct HopIDs that can be simultaneously in use on
a single node. Complex deployment scenarios that make use of
multiple, concurrent requests can provide a better insight on the
number of open requests stored in the Pending Interest Table PIT of memory-constrained
devices. This number can serve as an upper- upper bound and determines
whether the HopID length needs to be resized to fit more HopIDs to at
the cost of additional header overhead.
o
* Multiple implementations that generate and deploy the compression
options of this memo in different ways will also add to the
experience and understanding of the benefits and limitations of
the proposed schemes. Different reports can help to illuminate on
the complexity of implementing ICN LoWPAN for constrained devices,
as well as on maintaining interoperability with other
implementations.
11. Security Considerations
Main memory is typically a scarce resource of constrained networked
devices. Fragmentation Fragmentation, as described in this memo 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
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,
link or a group of devices.
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. Reserving Space in Updates to the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Type Field Registry
IANA has assigned dispatch values of for ICN LoWPAN in the "6LoWPAN Dispatch "Dispatch
Type Field" registry [RFC4944][RFC8025] with Page TBD1 for ICN LoWPAN. subregistry [RFC4944] [RFC8025] of the "IPv6 Low Power
Personal Area Network Parameters" registry. Table 2 represents the
updates to the registry.
+-------------+------+-------------------------------------------+
+=============+======+=========================+===========+
| Bit Pattern | Page | Header Type |
+-------------+------+-------------------------------------------+ Reference |
+=============+======+=========================+===========+
| 00 000000 | TBD1 14 | Uncompressed NDN | RFC 9139 |
| | | Interest messages | |
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 00 01xxxx | 14 | Compressed NDN Interest | RFC 9139 |
| | | messages | |
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 00 100000 | TBD1 14 | Uncompressed NDN Data | RFC 9139 |
| | | messages | |
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 00 11xxxx | 14 | Compressed NDN Data | RFC 9139 |
| | | messages | |
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 01 000000 | TBD1 14 | Uncompressed CCNx | RFC 9139 |
| | | Interest messages | |
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 01 100000 01xxxx | TBD1 14 | Uncompressed Compressed CCNx Content Object messages | RFC 9139 |
| 10 0xxxxx | TBD1 | Compressed NDN Interest messages | | 10 1xxxxx
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| TBD1 01 100000 | Compressed NDN Data messages 14 | Uncompressed CCNx | 11 0xxxxx RFC 9139 | TBD1
| Compressed CCNx Interest | | Content Object messages | | 11 1xxxxx
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 01 11xxxx | TBD1 14 | Compressed CCNx Content | RFC 9139 |
| | | Object messages |
+-------------+------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 2: Dispatch types for NDN and CCNx with page TBD1. |
+-------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[IEEE.754.2019]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, C/MSC -
Microprocessor Standards Committee, "Standard
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", June 2019,
<https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/
standard/754-2019.html>. IEEE
Std 754-2019, <https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-
standards/en/standard/754-2019.html>.
[ieee802.15.4]
IEEE, "IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2015", April 2016, Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", IEEE
Std 802.15.4-2015, <https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.15.4-2015.html>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://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/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://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/RFC5497, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5497>.
[RFC6256] Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric
Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, DOI 10.17487/RFC6256, May
2011, <https://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/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://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/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://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/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
13.2. Informative References
[CCN-LITE] "CCN-lite: A lightweight CCNx and NDN implementation",
<http://ccn-lite.net/>.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]
Tschudin, C., Wood, C., Mosko, M., and D. Oran, "File-Like
ICN Collections (FLIC)", draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-02 (work in
progress), November 2019.
[ICNLOWPAN]
Gundogan,
Gündogan, C., Kietzmann, P., Schmidt, TC., and M.
Waehlisch,
Wählisch, "ICNLoWPAN -- - Named-Data Networking in Low Power
IoT Networks", Proc. of 18th IFIP Networking Conference,
May 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.23919/IFIPNetworking.2019.8816850>.
[ICNRG-FLIC]
Tschudin, C., Wood, C., Mosko, M., and D. Oran, Ed.,
"File-Like ICN Collections (FLIC)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-02, 4 November 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-
flic-02>.
[NDN] Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Thornton, J., and M. Plass, M.,
Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking Named Content", named content",
5th Int. Conf. on emerging Networking Experiments and
Technologies (ACM CoNEXT), December 2009,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/1658939.1658941>.
[NDN-EXP1] Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, TC., and M.
Waehlisch,
Wählisch, "Information Centric Networking centric networking in the IoT:
Experiments
experiments with NDN in the Wild", wild", Proc. of 1st ACM Conf.
on Information-Centric Networking (ICN-2014) ACM DL, pp.
77-86, September 2014,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2660129.2660144>.
[NDN-EXP2]
Gundogan, Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Lenders, M., Petersen, H.,
Schmidt, TC., and M. Waehlisch, Wählisch, "NDN, CoAP, and MQTT: A
Comparative Measurement Study a
comparative measurement study in the IoT", Proc. of 5th
ACM Conf. on Information-Centric Networking (ICN-2018) ACM
DL, pp. 159-171, September 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/3267955.3267967>.
[NDN-MAC] Kietzmann, P., Gundogan, Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, TC., Hahm, O., and
M. Waehlisch, Wählisch, "The Need need for a Name name to MAC Address Mapping address mapping
in NDN: Towards Quantifying towards quantifying the Resource Gain", resource gain", Proc. of
4th ACM Conf. on Information-Centric Networking (ICN-
2017) (ICN-2017)
ACM DL, pp. 36-42, September 2017,
<https://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 Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://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 Networking: Baseline Scenarios",
RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015,
<https://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 Networking (ICN) Research
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.
[RFC7945] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
and G. Boggia, "Information-Centric Networking: Evaluation
and Security Considerations", RFC 7945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7945, September 2016,
<https://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/RFC8025, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8025>.
[RFC8569] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
<https://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/RFC8609, July 2019,
<https://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/RFC8930, November 2020,
<https://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/RFC8931, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8931>.
[RIOT] Baccelli, E., Gundogan, Gündoğan, C., Hahm, O., Kietzmann, P.,
Lenders, MS., Petersen, H., Schleiser, K., Schmidt, TC.,
and M. Waehlisch, Wählisch, "RIOT: an An Open Source Operating System
for Low-end Low-End Embedded Devices in the IoT", IEEE Internet of
Things Journal Vol. 5, No. 6, p. 4428-4440, December
2018, <https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2815038>.
[SFR-ICNLOWPAN]
Lenders, M., Gundogan, Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, TC., and M. Waehlisch, Wählisch,
"Connecting the Dots: Selective Fragment Recovery in
ICNLoWPAN", Proc. of 7th ACM Conf. on Information-Centric
Networking (ICN-2020) ACM DL, pp. 70-76, September 2020,
<https://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", January 2015,
<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",
January 2015, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/
interim-2015-icnrg-01/materials/slides-interim-2015-icnrg-
1-8>.
Appendix A. Estimated Size Reduction
In the following following, a theoretical evaluation is given to estimate the
gains of ICN LoWPAN compared to uncompressed CCNx and NDN messages.
We assume that "n" n is the number of name components, "comps_n" 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". clen. The lengths of TLV components is 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 1-byte form of each TLV component is assumed. A typical TLV
component therefore is of size 2 (type (Type field + length 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, a an
InterestLifetime TLV set to 4 seconds seconds, and a HopLimit TLV set to 6.
Numbers below represent the amount of bytes.
------------------------------------,
Interest TLV = 2 |
---------------------, |
Name | 2 + |
NameComponents = 2n + |
| comps_n |
---------------------' = 21 + 2n + comps_n
CanBePrefix = 2 |
MustBeFresh = 2 |
Nonce = 6 |
InterestLifetime = 4 |
HopLimit = 3 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 34: Estimated size Size of an uncompressed Uncompressed NDN Interest
Figure 35 depicts the size requirements after compression.
------------------------------------,
Dispatch Page Switch = 1 |
NDN Interset Interest Dispatch = 2 |
Interest TLV = 1 |
-----------------------, |
Name | |
NameComponents = n/2 + = 10 + n/2 + comps_n
| comps_n |
-----------------------' |
Nonce = 4 |
HopLimit = 1 |
InterestLifetime = 1 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 35: Estimated size Size of a compressed Compressed NDN Interest
The size difference is: is 11 + 1.5n bytes.
For the name "/DE/HH/HAW/BT7", /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 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.
------------------------------------,
Data TLV = 2 |
---------------------, |
Name | 2 + |
NameComponents = 2n + |
| comps_n |
---------------------' |
---------------------, |
MetaInfo | |
FreshnessPeriod = 6 |
| = 53 + 2n + comps_n +
---------------------' | clen + klen
Content = 2 + clen |
---------------------, |
SignatureInfo | |
SignatureType | |
KeyLocator = 41 + klen |
SignatureValue | |
DigestSha256 | |
---------------------' |
------------------------------------'
Figure 36: Estimated size Size of an uncompressed Uncompressed NDN Data
Figure 37 depicts the size requirements for the compressed version of
the above Data packet.
------------------------------------,
Dispatch Page Switch = 1 |
NDN Data Dispatch = 2 |
-----------------------, |
Name | |
NameComponents = n/2 + |
| comps_n = 38 + n/2 + comps_n +
-----------------------' | clen + klen
Content = 1 + clen |
KeyLocator = 1 + klen |
DigestSha256 = 32 |
FreshnessPeriod = 1 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 37: Estimated size Size of a compressed Compressed NDN Data
The size difference is: is 15 + 1.5n bytes.
For the name "/DE/HH/HAW/BT7", /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 Type and length 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 hop-by-hop TLVs are included, the protocol version
is assumed to be 1 1, and the reserved Reserved field is assumed to be 0. A
KeyIdRestriction TLV with T_SHA-256 is included to limit the
responses to Content Objects containing the specific key.
------------------------------------,
Fixed Header = 8 |
Message = 4 |
---------------------, |
Name | 4 + = 56 + 4n + comps_n
NameSegments = 4n + |
| comps_n |
---------------------' |
KeyIdRestriction = 40 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 38: Estimated size Size of an uncompressed Uncompressed CCNx Interest
Figure 39 depicts the size requirements after compression.
------------------------------------,
Dispatch Page Switch = 1 |
CCNx Interest Dispatch = 2 |
Fixed Header = 3 |
-----------------------, |
Name | = 38 + n/2 + comps_n
NameSegments = n/2 + |
| comps_n |
-----------------------' |
T_SHA-256 = 32 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 39: Estimated size Size of a compressed Compressed CCNx Interest
The size difference is: is 18 + 3.5n bytes.
For the name "/DE/HH/HAW/BT7", /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 time, and a hash of the shared
secret key. In the fixed header, the protocol version is assumed to
be 1 and the reserved Reserved field is assumed to be 0
------------------------------------,
Fixed Header = 8 |
Message = 4 |
---------------------, |
Name | 4 + |
NameSegments = 4n + |
| comps_n |
---------------------' |
ExpiryTime = 12 = 124 + 4n + comps_n + clen
Payload = 4 + clen |
---------------------, |
ValidationAlgorithm | |
T_HMAC-256 = 56 |
KeyId
KeyID | |
SignatureTime | |
---------------------' |
ValidationPayload = 36 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 40: Estimated size Size of an uncompressed Uncompressed CCNx Content Object
Figure 41 depicts the size requirements for a basic, compressed CCNx
Data.
------------------------------------,
Dispatch Page Switch = 1 |
CCNx Content Dispatch = 3 |
Fixed Header = 2 |
-----------------------, |
Name | |
NameSegments = n/2 + |
| comps_n = 89 + n/2 + comps_n + clen
-----------------------' |
ExpiryTime = 8 |
Payload = 1 + clen |
T_HMAC-SHA256 = 32 |
SignatureTime = 8 |
ValidationPayload = 34 |
------------------------------------'
Figure 41: Estimated size Size of a compressed Compressed CCNx Data Object
The size difference is: is 35 + 3.5n bytes.
For the name "/DE/HH/HAW/BT7", /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
research group 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 mentioning mention goes
to Mark Mosko Mosko, as well as G.Q. Wang and Ravi Ravindran Ravindran, as their
previous work in [TLV-ENC-802.15.4] and [WIRE-FORMAT-CONSID] provided
a good base for our discussions on stateless header compression
mechanisms. Many thanks also to Carsten Bormann and Lars Eggert, who
contributed in-depth comments during the IRSG review. This work was
supported in part by the German Federal Ministry of Research and
Education within the projects I3 and RAPstore.
Authors' Addresses
Cenk Gundogan
HAW Hamburg
Berliner Tor 7
Hamburg
D-20099 Hamburg
Germany
Phone: +4940428758067
EMail:
Email: cenk.guendogan@haw-hamburg.de
URI: http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/cenk-gundogan
Thomas C. Schmidt
HAW Hamburg
Berliner Tor 7
Hamburg
D-20099 Hamburg
Germany
EMail:
Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de
URI: http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt
Matthias Waehlisch Wählisch
link-lab & FU Berlin
Hoenower Str. 35
Berlin
D-10318 Berlin
Germany
EMail:
Email: mw@link-lab.net
URI: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl https://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/en/inf/groups/ilab/members/
waehlisch.html
Christopher Scherb
University of Basel
Spiegelgasse 1
Basel
CH-4051 Basel
Switzerland
EMail:
Email: christopher.scherb@unibas.ch
Claudio Marxer
University of Basel
Spiegelgasse 1
Basel
CH-4051 Basel
Switzerland
EMail:
Email: claudio.marxer@unibas.ch
Christian Tschudin
University of Basel
Spiegelgasse 1
Basel
CH-4051 Basel
Switzerland
EMail:
Email: christian.tschudin@unibas.ch