Doc: IEEE Submission July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [ Adaptation Layer for PAC Applications] Date Submitted: [May14th, 2012] Source: [Marco Hernandez, Huan-Bang Li, Igor Dotlić, Ryu Miura ] Company: [NICT] Address: [3-4 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka, , Japan] Voice:[ ] Fax: [ ] [] Re: [In response to call for applications for TG] Abstract:[ ] Purpose:[Material for discussion in TG] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

Doc: IEEE Submission Introduction Applications with IEEE Stds consider a star topology (limited multi-hop) with non-IP communication. Conventional applications employing IEEE Stds consider IP is not well-suited for low power WPAN. Without a common network layer, such applications require an application-layer gateway to communicate with other systems (complex to design and manage). On the other hand, PAC applications are envisioned to require deployment flexibility, scalability and robustness. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 2

Doc: IEEE Submission Introduction A common network protocol is highly desirable for such flexibility and scalability of PAC applications. In fact, in past years considerable research has tried to provide IP communication capabilities to IEEE devices with IPv6. IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) released a new Std based on 6LoWPAN for low power and lossy networks (LLN), aka IEEE devices. Basically, it adds an adaptation layer to the IEEE Std to handle IPv6. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 3

Doc: IEEE Submission Possible PAC architecture This adaptation layer allows to take routing or forwarding decisions at such adaptation layer rather than at the network layer. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 4 Path computation & packet forwarding

Doc: IEEE Submission Mesh-under vs Route-over An IP link is defined by those nodes that are reachable over a single IP hop (single broadcast domain). WiFi emulates the above with a subnet containing clients that only communicate with an access point. Bringing IPv6 to WLLNs, such as PAC, means how to emulate the single broadcast domain. This is referred to as the mesh-under vs route-over debate. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 5

Doc: IEEE Submission Network model For multi-hop communication with route-over, border routers (BR), routers (R) perform IP routing within a WLLN (IEEE802.15) to a host (h) July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 6 Link-local scope covers only the nodes within radio range of a given node

Doc: IEEE Submission Network model For multi-hop communication with mesh-under, the border router (BR) is the only IP router in the WLLN. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 7 Link-local scope includes all nodes in the WLLN. A mesh mechanism must be provided to support multi-hop.

Doc: IEEE Submission Example Not all devices that are in radio range need to be part of the same WLLN. When multiple WLLNs are formed with globally unique IPv6 addresses, device a of WLLN A wants to communicate with device b of WLLN B: –Route over: IPv6 address of b is set as the destination (devices perform IP routing to the BR) –Mesh under: Only one IP hop from device a to BR A, no matter how many radio hops are apart (there is a mesh routing protocol to reach the BR by devices) –Devices use the physical address (MAC address) July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 8

Doc: IEEE Submission Pros - cons Now, PAC applications do not consider infrastructure, so mesh-under seems the most attractive approach. TG8 may define partially/totally an adaptation layer and mesh under algorithms for routing. However, it is the most challenging due to the dynamic radio properties lead to more complex forwarding and routing (dynamic topology, etc.). July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 9

Doc: IEEE Submission Pros - cons In route-over, the emulation of a broadcast domain is constrained to a radio Tx. range. TG8 may define partially/totally an adaptation layer –However, multi-hop will not handle by TG8 under this approach. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 10