Subject: [6lowpan] SNMP optimizations

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:10:23 +0100

Hi,

I am sending this message to the 6lowpan, ROLL and MANET mailing list,
since I think this topic concerns all three working groups, and I am
not sure in which WG this is to be tackled.

During the MANET WG meeting and also during an OLSRv2 Interop
workshop, we had discussions about SNMP deployments in such ad-hoc
networks we are dealing with. The issue that was raised (and which is
also described in draft-hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations) is that SNMP
may be too memory-/CPU-/bandwidth-consuming for low-power devices.
However, a solution for monitoring and management of these devices is
desired (and also required by IETF). The before-mentioned draft
describes very well how to optimize SNMP for running it on 6lowpan
devices, and shows that the SNMP payload can fit into 6lowpan packets.
However, it is unclear whether the code footprint of SNMP
implementations can fit into the memory of small devices. From
discussions with several persons from the MANET WG, I conclude that
for MANET the same problem exists. (and I think for ROLL, too?)

I have several questions that came to my mind about this topic:

- First of all, to which WG does this issue belong to? Or is it -- as
I suppose -- a common problem for the three working groups addressed
in this mail?
- Is this really an issue? Are there implementations of SNMP (maybe
not open-source) that can be run on very small devices such as
considered in 6lowpan/ROLL/MANET? Is there any experimental (or
theoretical) analysis whether SNMP (or any other standardized
management protocol) can run on these devices?
- If SNMP cannot be used for small devices, how can we manage and
monitor these devices then? (e.g. using proxies, different message
formats such as proposed in 6lowapp, etc.). Do we need a different
lightweight protocol for management?
 - Can we provide SNMP not only on a single device, but for a whole
network? That might need an aggregator device that runs full SNMP and
collects the data from the low power devices. This would imply to
monitor statistics of a whole network (e.g. number of links, average
throughput, average path-length, etc.)
 - What kind of objects should be provided in a MIB running on a
MANET/6lowpan/ROLL device? This might be specific to the routing
protocol, but there can be commonalities.

Regards,
Ulrich

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:58:22 +0100

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:10:23PM +0100, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

[... we should restrict this to one mailing list...]

> I suppose -- a common problem for the three working groups addressed

I don't know.

> management protocol) can run on these devices?

The question is under specified. What is a "very small device" and how
much can a "very small device" devote to SNMP? And what is SNMP? The
SNMPv3 specs are pretty modular. One of the more important questions
is how you deal with security - the security code has the potential to
be bigger than the rest of the SNMP engine. And it boils down to the
question of how many MIB objects you support and to what extend you
hardwire things. Remember that SNMP is a child of the late 80s and
early versions were sometimes embedded into devices that could not
afford TCP. Of course, the 80s version of SNMP did not care much about
security...

> lightweight protocol for management?

Again, the big question is how to deal with the security aspect. SNMP
originally was lightweight because there was no security. It took the
IETF many years to find a workable security solution and even today
people are working on utilizing transport layer security protocols
within SNMP (see ISMS working group).

> throughput, average path-length, etc.)

Sure, there are ways of doing this. For read-only objects, this is
relatively easy - it can get a bit messy if you have read-write
objects. Whether this direction is worthwhile to explore depends on
how you solve the security issues and whether a dependency on a
"gateway" is desirable in the first place.

> protocol, but there can be commonalities.

In general, the IETF tends to break MIB modules down along protocol
functions. Following this approach, a ROLL MIB module would report
data about the ROLL routing protocol. A 6LoWPAN MIB would report data
about the 6LoWPAN layer, that is for example the list of supported
6LoWPAN protocol features and counters for 6LoWPAN processing failures
(e.g. reassembly failures) that help to trouble shoot 6LoWPAN issues.
I would hope that some IPv6 MIB objects apply as well and then there
should ideally be an IEEE 802.15.4 MIB module for this particular
radio technology. I do not think there is much overlap if things get
structured well. This, however, might be difficult to achieve if work
is spread over several WGs.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Rene Struik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:40:12 -0500

Hi Juergen:

I submitted a 6lowapp draft on security considerations precisely because
one needs a description of the problem space and make sure it is not
"forgotten". 

I do understand that people may wish and use some functionality that is
already out there, but question is whether it supports the desired
security functionality over the lifecycle of the system. 

Could you recommend an overview paper on SNMP that would make it easy to
see what the supposed security features are suitable to sensor-type
applications and how these are delivered (mechanisms, communication
overhead, etc.). This should make it easier to provide a more
quantitative assessment.

Best regards, Rene

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:58 PM
To: Ulrich Herberg
Cc: [email-masked]; 6lowpan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] SNMP optimizations

I don't know.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:00:30 +0100

> overhead, etc.). This should make it easier to provide a more

I can provide you with a draft of a paper discussing the impact of
security on SNMP in general.

http://cnds.eecs.jacobs-university.de/people/schoenw/drafts/snmp-security.pdf

This paper requires some updates - some of the references etc. are
meanwhile outdated.

/js

---

From: "Cole, Robert G." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:41:30 -0500

Ulrich,

The was some prior related work in the RMON WG on the RAQMON model (RFCs 4710 and 4711).  This monitoring framework was explicitly designed to monitor low-power, hand held devices, e.g., phones.  Dan was one of the co-authors.  Folks may want to read thru these RFCs.

Thanks,
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ulrich Herberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:10 PM
To: 6lowpan; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] SNMP optimizations

Hi,

I am sending this message to the 6lowpan, ROLL and MANET mailing list, since I think this topic concerns all three working groups, and I am not sure in which WG this is to be tackled.

During the MANET WG meeting and also during an OLSRv2 Interop workshop, we had discussions about SNMP deployments in such ad-hoc networks we are dealing with. The issue that was raised (and which is also described in draft-hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations) is that SNMP may be too memory-/CPU-/bandwidth-consuming for low-power devices.
However, a solution for monitoring and management of these devices is desired (and also required by IETF). The before-mentioned draft describes very well how to optimize SNMP for running it on 6lowpan devices, and shows that the SNMP payload can fit into 6lowpan packets.
However, it is unclear whether the code footprint of SNMP implementations can fit into the memory of small devices. From discussions with several persons from the MANET WG, I conclude that for MANET the same problem exists. (and I think for ROLL, too?)

- First of all, to which WG does this issue belong to? Or is it -- as I suppose -- a common problem for the three working groups addressed in this mail?
- Is this really an issue? Are there implementations of SNMP (maybe not open-source) that can be run on very small devices such as considered in 6lowpan/ROLL/MANET? Is there any experimental (or
theoretical) analysis whether SNMP (or any other standardized management protocol) can run on these devices?
- If SNMP cannot be used for small devices, how can we manage and monitor these devices then? (e.g. using proxies, different message formats such as proposed in 6lowapp, etc.). Do we need a different lightweight protocol for management?
 - Can we provide SNMP not only on a single device, but for a whole network? That might need an aggregator device that runs full SNMP and collects the data from the low power devices. This would imply to monitor statistics of a whole network (e.g. number of links, average throughput, average path-length, etc.)
 - What kind of objects should be provided in a MIB running on a MANET/6lowpan/ROLL device? This might be specific to the routing protocol, but there can be commonalities.

Regards,
Ulrich
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet