[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-dt-roll-p2p-rpl) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 6997

Internet Engineering Task Force                            M. Goyal, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                   University of Wisconsin
Intended status: Experimental                                  Milwaukee
Expires: June 15, 2013                                       E. Baccelli
                                                              M. Philipp
                                                                   INRIA
                                                               A. Brandt
                                                           Sigma Designs
                                                             J. Martocci
                                                        Johnson Controls
                                                       December 12, 2012


   Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low Power and Lossy
                                Networks
                       draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15

Abstract

   This document specifies a point-to-point route discovery mechanism,
   complementary to the RPL core functionality.  This mechanism allows
   an IPv6 router to discover "on demand" routes to one or more IPv6
   routers in the LLN such that the discovered routes meet specified
   metrics constraints.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 15, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Functional Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  P2P Route Discovery Mode Of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Setting a P2P Mode DIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  New RPL Control Message Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  P2P Route Discovery Option (P2P-RDO) . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  Data Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  The Discovery Reply Object (DRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Secure DRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.2.  Setting a P2P-RDO Carried in a Discovery Reply Object  . . 19
   9.  P2P-RPL Route Discovery By Creating a Temporary DAG  . . . . . 19
     9.1.  Joining a Temporary DAG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     9.2.  Trickle Operation For P2P Mode DIOs  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     9.3.  Processing a P2P Mode DIO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     9.4.  Additional Processing of a P2P Mode DIO At An
           Intermediate Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     9.5.  Additional Processing of a P2P Mode DIO At The Target  . . 24
     9.6.  Processing a DRO At An Intermediate Router . . . . . . . . 25
     9.7.  Processing a DRO At The Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   10. The Discovery Reply Object Acknowledgement (DRO-ACK) . . . . . 28
   11. Packet Forwarding Along a Route Discovered Using P2P-RPL . . . 29
   12. Interoperability with Core RPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   14. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     14.1. Additions to Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     14.2. Additions to RPL Control Message Options . . . . . . . . . 31
     14.3. Additions to RPL Control Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34




Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


1.  Introduction

   Targeting Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs), the IPv6 Routing
   Protocol for LLNs (RPL) [RFC6550] provides paths along a Directed
   Acyclic Graph (DAG) rooted at a single router in the network.
   Establishment and maintenance of a DAG is performed by routers in the
   LLN using Destination-Oriented DAG (DODAG) Information Object (DIO)
   messages.  When two arbitrary routers (neither of which is the DAG's
   root) need to communicate, the data packets are restricted to travel
   only along the links in the DAG.  Such point-to-point (P2P) routing
   functionality may not be sufficient for several Home and Building
   Automation applications [RFC5826] [RFC5867] due to the following
   reasons:

   o  The need to pre-establish routes: each potential destination in
      the network must declare itself as such ahead of the time a source
      needs to reach it.

   o  The need to route only along the links in the DAG: A DAG is built
      to optimize the routing cost to reach the root.  Restricting P2P
      routes to use only the in-DAG links may result in significantly
      suboptimal routes and severe traffic congestion near the DAG root.

   This document describes an extension to core RPL that enables an IPv6
   router in the LLN to discover routes to one or more IPv6 routers in
   the LLN "on demand", such that the discovered routes meet the
   specified metrics constraints, without necessarily going along the
   links in an existing DAG.  This reactive P2P route discovery
   mechanism is henceforth referred to as P2P-RPL.  P2P-RPL does not
   guarantee discovery of a route.  Also, the discovered routes might
   not be optimal.  However, any discovered routes are guaranteed to
   satisfy the desired constraints in terms of the routing metrics and
   are thus considered "good enough" from the application's perspective.

   A mechanism to measure the end-to-end cost of an existing route is
   specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-p2p-measurement].  As discussed in
   Section 4, measuring the end-to-end cost of an existing route may
   help decide whether to initiate the discovery of a better route using
   P2P-RPL and the metric constraints to be used for this purpose.

   This document is presented as an Experimental specification to
   facilitate P2P-RPL's deployment in LLN scenarios where reactive P2P
   route discovery is considered useful or necessary.  It is anticipated
   that, once sufficient operational experience has been gained, this
   specification will be revised to progress it on to the Standards
   Track.  Experience reports regarding P2P-RPL implementation and
   deployment are encouraged particularly with respect to the values in
   the default DODAG Configuration Option (Section 6.1) and the rules



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   governing Trickle operation (Section 9.2).


2.  The Use Cases

   One use case, common in home and commercial building environments,
   involves a device (say a remote control or an airduct controller)
   that suddenly needs to communicate with another device (say a lamp or
   a humidity sensor) to which it does not already have a route.  In
   this case, the remote control (or the airduct controller) must be
   able to discover a route to the lamp (or the humidity sensor) "on
   demand".

   Another use case, common in a commercial building environment,
   involves a large LLN deployment where P2P communication along a
   particular DAG among hundreds (or thousands) of routers creates
   severe traffic congestion near that DAG's root, and thus routes
   across this DAG are desirable.

   Other use cases involve scenarios where energy or latency constraints
   are not satisfied by the P2P routes along an existing DAG because
   they involve traversing many more intermediate routers than necessary
   to reach the destination.


3.  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
   [RFC2119].

   Additionally, this document uses terminology from [RFC6550].  This
   document introduces the following terms:

   Origin : The IPv6 router initiating the P2P-RPL route discovery.

   Target : The IPv6 router at the other end point of the P2P route(s)
   to be discovered.  A P2P-RPL route discovery can discover routes to
   multiple Targets at the same time.

   Intermediate Router: An IPv6 router that is neither the Origin nor a
   Target.

   Forward direction: The direction from the Origin to the Target.

   Backward direction: The direction from the Target to the Origin.




Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   Forward Route: A route in the Forward direction.

   Backward Route: A route in the Backward direction.

   Bidirectional Route: A route that can be used in both Forward and
   Backward directions.

   Source Route: A complete and ordered list of routers that can be used
   by a packet to travel from a source to a destination node.

   Hop-by-hop Route: The route characterized by each router on the route
   using its routing table to determine the next hop on the route.


4.  Applicability

   A route discovery using P2P-RPL may be performed by an Origin when no
   route exists between itself and the Target(s) or when the existing
   routes do not satisfy the application requirements.  P2P-RPL is
   designed to discover Hop-by-hop or Source Routes to one or more
   Targets such that the discovered routes meet the specified
   constraints.  In some application contexts, the constraints that the
   discovered routes must satisfy are intrinsically known or can be
   specified by the application.  For example, an Origin that expects
   its Targets to be less than 5 hops away may use "hop-count < 5" as
   the constraint.  In other application contexts, the Origin may need
   to measure the cost of the existing route to a Target to determine
   the constraints.  For example, an Origin that measures the total ETX
   along its current route to a Target to be 20 may use "ETX < x*20",
   where x is a fraction that the Origin decides, as the constraint.  A
   mechanism to measure the cost of an existing route between two IPv6
   routers is specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-p2p-measurement].  If there is
   no existing route between the Origin and the Target(s) or the cost
   measurement for the existing routes fails, the Origin will have to
   guess the constraints to be used in the initial route discovery.
   Once, the initial route discovery succeeds or fails, the Origin will
   have a better estimate for the constraints to be used in the
   subsequent route discovery.

   P2P-RPL may result in discovery of better P2P routes than the ones
   available along a global DAG designed to optimize routing cost to the
   DAG's root.  The improvement in route quality depends on a number of
   factors including the network topology, the "distance" between the
   Origin and the Target (in terms of the routing metrics in use) and
   the prevalent conditions in the network.  In general, a P2P-RPL route
   may be better than the one along a global DAG if the Origin and the
   Target are nearby.  Similarly, a P2P-RPL route may not be much better
   than the one along a global DAG if the Origin and the Target are far



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   apart.  Note that, even when P2P-RPL routes are not much better than
   those along a global DAG, P2P-RPL routes may still be able to avoid
   congestion that might occur near the root if the routing takes place
   only along a global DAG.  In general, the costs associated with a
   P2P-RPL route discovery (in terms of the control messages, mostly
   DIOs, generated) increases with the distance between the Origin and
   the Target.  However, it is possible to limit the cost of route
   discovery by carefully setting the routing constraints, the Trickle
   parameters (that govern the DIO generation) and the lifetime of the
   temporary DAG created for the route discovery.  A network designer
   may take into consideration both the benefits (potentially better
   routes; no need to maintain routes proactively; avoid congestion near
   the global DAG's root) and costs when using P2P-RPL.  The latency
   associated with a P2P-RPL route discovery again depends on the
   distance between the Origin and the Target and the Trickle
   parameters.

   Note that the participation in a P2P-RPL route discovery is limited
   to the routers with IPv6 addresses that are reachable in both Forward
   and Backward directions.


5.  Functional Overview

   This section contains a high level description of P2P-RPL.

   A P2P-RPL route discovery takes place by forming a DAG rooted at the
   Origin.  As is the case with core RPL, P2P-RPL uses IPv6 link-local
   multicast DIO messages to establish a DAG.  However, unlike core RPL,
   this DAG is temporary in nature and routers in the DAG leave once the
   DAG's life time is over.  The sole purpose of DAG creation is to
   discover routes to the Target(s) and DIOs serve as the route
   discovery messages.  Each router joining the DAG determines a rank
   for itself in the DAG and ignores the subsequent DIOs received from
   lower (higher in numerical value) ranked neighbors.  Thus, the route
   discovery messages propagate away from the Origin rather than return
   back to it.  As in core RPL, DIO generation at a router is controlled
   by a Trickle timer [RFC6206] that allows a router to avoid generating
   unnecessary messages while providing protection against packet loss.
   P2P-RPL also uses the routing metrics [RFC6551], objective functions
   and packet forwarding framework [RFC6554][RFC6553] developed for core
   RPL.

   An Origin may use P2P-RPL to discover routes to one or more Targets
   identified by one or more unicast/multicast addresses.  P2P-RPL
   allows for the discovery of one Hop-by-hop Route or up to four Source
   Routes per Target.  P2P-RPL allows an Origin to piggyback time-
   critical application data on the DIO messages for delivery to the



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   Target(s).  P2P-RPL does not guarantee discovery of a route to a
   Target.  Also, the discovered routes might not be the best available.
   However, any discovered routes are guaranteed to satisfy the desired
   constraints in terms of the routing metrics and are thus considered
   "good enough" from the application's perspective.

   A P2P-RPL route discovery takes place by forming a temporary DAG
   rooted at the Origin.  The DIOs, used to create the temporary DAG,
   are identified by a new Mode of Operation (P2P Route Discovery mode
   defined in Section 6).  The DIOs, listing the P2P Route Discovery
   mode as the Mode of Operation, are henceforth referred to as the P2P
   mode DIOs.  A P2P mode DIO always carries one P2P Route Discovery
   Option (defined in Section 7.1) in which the Origin specifies the
   following information:

   o  The IPv6 address of a Target.  This could be a unicast address or
      a multicast one.  Any additional Targets may be specified by
      including one or more RPL Target Options [RFC6550] inside the DIO.

   o  The nature of the route(s) to be discovered: hop-by-hop or Source
      Routes.  This specification allows for the discovery of one Hop-
      by-hop Route or up to four Source Routes per Target.

   o  The desired number of routes (if Source Routes are being
      discovered).

   o  Whether the Target(s) should send Discovery Reply Object (DRO)
      messages (defined in Section 8) back to the Origin on receiving a
      DIO message.  A DRO message carries a discovered Source Route back
      to the Origin or establishes a Hop-by-hop Route between the Origin
      and the Target.  By not allowing the generation of DRO messages,
      an Origin can use P2P-RPL as purely a mechanism to deliver time-
      critical application data to the Target(s).

   A P2P Route Discovery Option also accumulates a route from the Origin
   to a Target as the routers join the temporary DAG.

   A P2P mode DIO MAY also carry:

   o  One or more Metric Container Options to specify:

      *  The relevant routing metrics.

      *  The constraints that the discovered route must satisfy.  These
         constraints also limit how far the DIOs message may travel.






Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   o  One or more RPL Target options to specify additional unicast or
      multicast Targets.

   o  One Data Option (defined in Section 7.2) to carry time-critical
      application-level data to be delivered to the Target(s).

   As the routers join the temporary DAG, they keep track of the best
   (partial) route(s) they have seen and advertise these routes, along
   with the corresponding routing metrics, in their P2P mode DIOs.  A
   router, including the Target(s), discards a received P2P mode DIO if
   the aggregated routing metrics on the route advertised by the DIO do
   not satisfy the listed constraints.  These constraints can be used to
   limit the propagation of P2P mode DIO messages.  A router may also
   discard a received P2P mode DIO if it does not wish to be a part of
   the discovered route due to limited resources or due to policy
   reasons.

   When a Target receives a P2P mode DIO, it forwards the data in the
   Data Option, if present, to the higher layer.  Since the IPv6
   addresses making up the discovered route are reachable in both
   Forward and Backward directions (Section 7.1), the Target may
   remember the discovered route for use as a Source Route to reach the
   Origin.  If the Origin has requested DRO messages to be sent back,
   the Target may select the route contained in the received DIO for
   further processing as described next.  This document does not specify
   a particular method for the Target to use to select a route for
   further processing.  Example methods include selecting any route that
   meets the constraints or selecting the best route(s) discovered over
   a certain time period.

   If one or more Source Routes are being discovered, the Target sends
   the selected Source Routes to the Origin via DRO messages with one
   DRO message carrying one discovered route.  On receiving a DRO
   message, the Origin stores the discovered route in its memory.  This
   specification allows the Origin to discover up to four Source Routes
   per Target, thereby allowing the Origin to have sufficient ready-to-
   use alternatives should one or more of these routes fail.  If a Hop-
   by-hop Route is being discovered, the Target sends a DRO message
   containing the selected route to the Origin.  The DRO message travels
   back to the Origin along the selected route, establishing state for
   this route in the routers on the path.  The Target may include a Data
   Option in a DRO message to deliver any time-critical application data
   to the Origin.

   The Target may request the Origin to acknowledge the receipt of a DRO
   message by sending back a DRO Acknowledgement (DRO-ACK) message
   (defined in Section 10).  The Origin unicasts a DRO-ACK message to
   the Target.  If the Target does not receive the requested DRO-ACK



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   within a certain time interval of sending a DRO, it resends the DRO
   message (up to a certain number of times) carrying the same route as
   before.

   The use of trickle timers to delay the propagation of DIO messages
   may cause some nodes to generate these messages even when the desired
   routes have already been discovered.  In order to preempt the
   generation of such unnecessary messages, the Target may set a "Stop"
   flag in the DRO message to let the nodes in the LLN know about the
   completion of the route discovery process.  The routers receiving
   such a DRO should not generate any more DIOs for this temporary DAG.
   Neither should they process any received DIOs for this temporary DAG
   in future.  However, such routers must still process the DROs
   received for this temporary DAG.


6.  P2P Route Discovery Mode Of Operation

   This section specifies a new RPL Mode of Operation (MOP), P2P Route
   Discovery Mode (or P2P mode, for short), with value TBD1.  A DIO
   message, listing P2P mode as the MOP, is identified as performing a
   P2P-RPL route discovery by creating a temporary DAG.  A P2P mode DIO
   MUST carry one and only one P2P Route Discovery Option (specified in
   Section 7.1).

6.1.  Setting a P2P Mode DIO

   The Base Object in a P2P mode DIO message MUST be set in the
   following manner:

   o  RPLInstanceID: RPLInstanceID MUST be a local value as described in
      Section 5.1 of [RFC6550].  The Origin MUST NOT use the same
      RPLInstanceID in two or more concurrent route discoveries.  When
      initiating a new route discovery to a particular Target, the
      Origin MUST NOT reuse the RPLInstanceID used in a previous route
      discovery to this Target if the previously discovered routes might
      still exist.  The Default Lifetime and Lifetime Unit parameters in
      the DODAG Configuration Option specify the lifetime of the state
      the routers, including the Origin and the Target, maintain for a
      hop-by-hop or a Source Route discovered using P2P-RPL.  Thus, an
      Origin can safely reuse an RPLInstanceID to discover a new route
      to a Target if the lifetime of all previously discovered routes to
      this Target using this RPLInstanceID is over.

   o  Version Number: MUST be set to zero.  The temporary DAG used for
      P2P-RPL route discovery does not exist long enough to have new
      versions.




Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   o  Grounded (G) Flag: This flag MUST be set to one.  Unlike a global
      RPL instance, the concept of a floating DAG, used to provide
      connectivity within a sub-DAG detached from a grounded DAG, does
      not apply to a local RPL instance.  Hence, an Origin MUST always
      set the G flag to one when initiating a P2P-RPL route discovery.
      Further, clause 3 of Section 8.2.2.2 in [RFC6550] does not apply
      and a node MUST NOT initiate a new DAG if it does not have any
      parent left in a P2P-RPL DAG.

   o  Mode of Operation (MOP): MUST be set to TBD1, corresponding to P2P
      Route Discovery mode.

   o  DTSN: MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on
      reception.

   o  DODAGPreference (Prf): This field MUST be set to zero (least
      preferred).

   o  DODAGID: This field MUST be set to an IPv6 address of the Origin.

   o  The other fields in the DIO Base Object can be set in the desired
      fashion as per the rules described in [RFC6550].

   A received P2P mode DIO MUST be discarded if it does not follow the
   above-listed rules regarding the RPLInstanceID, Version Number, G
   flag, MOP and Prf fields inside the base object.

   The DODAG Configuration Option, inside a P2P mode DIO MUST be set in
   the following manner:

   o  The Origin MUST set the MaxRankIncrease parameter to zero to
      disable local repair of the temporary DAG.  A received P2P mode
      DIO MUST be discarded if the MaxRankIncrease parameter inside the
      DODAG Configuration Option is not zero.

   o  The Origin SHOULD set the Trickle parameters
      (DIOIntervalDoublings, DIOIntervalMin, DIORedundancyConstant) as
      recommended in Section 9.2.

   o  The Origin sets the Default Lifetime and Lifetime Unit parameters
      to indicate the lifetime of the state the routers, including the
      Origin and the Target(s), maintain for a hop-by-hop or a Source
      Route discovered using P2P-RPL.

   o  The Origin sets the other fields in the DODAG Configuration
      Option, including the OCP identifying the Objective function, in
      the desired fashion as per the rules described in [RFC6550].




Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   o  An Intermediate Router (or a Target) MUST set various fields in
      the DODAG Configuration Option in the outgoing P2P mode DIOs to
      the values they had in the incoming P2P mode DIOs for this DAG.

   A default DODAG Configuration Option comes in effect if a P2P mode
   DIO does not carry an explicit one.  The default DODAG Configuration
   Option has the following parameter values:

   o  Authentication Enabled: 0

   o  DIOIntervalMin: 6, which translates to 64ms as the value for Imin
      parameter in Trickle operation.  This value is roughly one order
      of magnitude larger than the typical transmission delay on IEEE
      802.15.4 links and corresponds to the recommendation in
      Section 9.2 for well-connected topologies.

   o  DIORedundancyConstant: 1.  See the discussion in Section 9.2.

   o  MaxRankIncrease: 0 (to disable local repair of the temporary DAG).

   o  Default Lifetime: 0xFF, to correspond to infinity.

   o  Lifetime Unit: 0xFFFF, to correspond to infinity.

   o  Objective Code Point: 0, i.e., OF0 [RFC6552] is the default
      objective function.

   o  The remaining parameters have default values as specified in
      [RFC6550].

   Individual P2P-RPL deployments are encouraged to share their
   experience with these default values with ROLL working group to help
   guide the development of standards track version of the protocol.

   The routing metrics and constraints [RFC6551] used in P2P-RPL route
   discovery are included in one or more Metric Container Options
   [RFC6550] inside the P2P mode DIO.  Note that a DIO need not include
   a Metric Container if OF0 is the objective function in effect.  In
   that case, a P2P mode DIO may still specify an upper limit on the
   maximum rank, that a router may have in the temporary DAG, inside the
   P2P Route Discovery Option (described in Section 7.1).

   A P2P mode DIO:

   o  MUST carry one (and only one) P2P Route Discovery Option
      (described in Section 7.1).  The P2P Route Discovery Option allows
      for the specification of one unicast or multicast address for the
      Target.  A received P2P mode DIO MUST be discarded if it does not



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      contain exactly one P2P Route Discovery Option.

   o  MAY carry one or more RPL Target Options to specify additional
      unicast/multicast addresses for the Target.

   o  MAY carry one or more Metric Container Options to specify routing
      metrics and constraints.

   o  MAY carry one Data Option (described in Section 7.2) containing
      time-critical application data to be delivered to the Target(s).
      A received P2P mode DIO MUST be discarded if it contains multiple
      Data Options.

   o  MAY carry one or more Route Information Options [RFC6550].  In the
      context of P2P-RPL, a Route Information Option advertizes to the
      Target(s) the Origin's connectivity to the prefix specified in the
      option.

   o  MAY carry one or more Prefix Information Options subject to the
      usage and rules specified in Section 6.7.10 in [RFC6550].


7.  New RPL Control Message Options

   This document defines two new RPL control message options: the P2P
   Route Discovery Option and the Data Option.

7.1.  P2P Route Discovery Option (P2P-RDO)

           -
       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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type = TBD2 | Option Length |R|H| N | Compr | L |MaxRank/NH |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                           Target                              |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                       Address[1..n]                           |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


         Figure 1: Format of P2P Route Discovery Option (P2P-RDO)



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   The format of a P2P Route Discovery Option (P2P-RDO) is illustrated
   in Figure 1.  A P2P mode DIO and a DRO (defined in Section 8) message
   MUST carry one and at most one P2P-RDO.  A P2P-RDO consists of the
   following fields:

   o  Option Type: TBD2.

   o  Option Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in
      octets of the option, not including the Option Type and Option
      Length fields.

   o  Reply (R): The Origin sets this flag to one to allow the Target(s)
      to send DRO messages back to the Origin.  If this flag is zero, a
      Target MUST NOT generate any DRO message.

   o  Hop-by-hop (H): This flag is valid only if the R flag is set to
      one.  The Origin sets this flag to one if it desires Hop-by-hop
      Routes.  The Origin sets this flag to zero if it desires Source
      Routes.  This specification allows for the establishment of one
      hop-by-hop route or up to four Source Routes per Target.  The Hop-
      by-hop Route is established in the Forward direction, i.e. from
      the Origin to the Target.  This specification does not allow for
      the establishment of Hop-by-hop Routes in the Backward direction.

   o  Number of Routes (N): This field is valid only if the R flag is
      one and H flag is zero, i.e. the Targets are allowed to generate
      DRO messages carrying discovered Source Routes back to the Origin.
      In this case, the value in the N field plus one indicates the
      number of Source Routes that each Target should convey to the
      Origin.  When Hop-by-hop Routes are being discovered, the N field
      MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on reception.

   o  Compr: 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of prefix
      octets that are elided from the Target field and the Address
      vector.  For example, Compr value will be zero if full IPv6
      addresses are carried in the Target field and the Address vector.

   o  Life Time (L): A 2-bit field that indicates the minimum life time
      of the temporary DAG, i.e., the minimum duration a router joining
      the temporary DAG MUST maintain its membership in the DAG.  The
      mapping between the values in this field and the life time of the
      temporary DAG is as follows:

      *  0x00: 1 second;

      *  0x01: 4 seconds;





Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      *  0x02: 16 seconds;

      *  0x03: 64 seconds;

      The Origin sets this field based on its expectation regarding the
      time required for the route discovery to complete, which includes
      the time required for the DIOs to reach the Target(s) and the DROs
      to travel back to the Origin.  The time required for the DIOs to
      reach the Target(s) would in turn depend on the Trickle parameters
      (Imin and the redundancy constant) as well as the expected
      distance (in terms of hops and/or ETX) to the Target(s).  While
      deciding the temporary DAG's lifetime, the Origin should also take
      in account the fact that all nodes joining the temporary DAG would
      need to stay in the DAG for at least this much time.

   o  MaxRank/NH:

      *  When a P2P-RDO is included in a P2P mode DIO, this field
         indicates the upper limit on the integer portion of the rank
         (calculated using the DAGRank() macro defined in [RFC6550])
         that a router may have in the temporary DAG being created.  An
         Intermediate Router MUST NOT join a temporary DAG being created
         by a P2P mode DIO if the integer portion of its rank would be
         equal to or higher (in numerical value) than the MaxRank limit.
         A Target can join the temporary DAG at a rank whose integer
         portion is equal to the MaxRank.  A router MUST discard a
         received P2P mode DIO if the integer part of the advertized
         rank equals or exceeds the MaxRank limit.  A value 0 in this
         field indicates that the MaxRank is infinity.

      *  When a P2P-RDO is included in a DRO message, this field
         indicates the index of the next hop address inside the Address
         vector.

   o  Target: An IPv6 address of the Target after eliding Compr number
      of prefix octets.  When the P2P-RDO is included in a P2P mode DIO,
      this field may contain a unicast address or a multicast one.  Any
      additional Target addresses can be specified by including one or
      more RPL Target Options [RFC6550] in the DIO.  When the P2P-RDO is
      included in a DRO, this field MUST contain a unicast IPv6 address
      of the Target generating the DRO.

   o  Address[1..n]: A vector of IPv6 addresses representing a (partial)
      route in the Forward direction:

      *  Each element in the Address vector has size (16 - Compr) octets
         and MUST contain a valid IPv6 address with first Compr octets
         elided.



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      *  The total number of elements inside the Address vector is given
         by n = (Option Length - 2 - (16 - Compr))/(16 - Compr).

      *  The IPv6 addresses in the Address vector MUST be reachable in
         both Forward and Backward directions.  Reachability in the
         Backward direction allows a DRO message to use the route
         accumulated in the Address vector to travel from the Target to
         the Origin.

      *  The Address vector MUST carry the accumulated route in the
         Forward direction, i.e., the first element in the Address
         vector must contain the IPv6 address of the router next to the
         Origin and so on.

      *  The Origin and Target addresses MUST NOT be included in the
         Address vector.

      *  A router adding its address to the vector MUST ensure that any
         of its addresses do not already exist in the vector.  A router
         specifying a complete route in the Address vector MUST ensure
         that the vector does not contain any address more than once.

      *  The Address vector MUST NOT contain any multicast addresses.

7.2.  Data Option

       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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type = TBD3 | Option Length | UpperLayerPrt |   Data        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...


                      Figure 2: Format of Data Option

   The format of a Data Option is illustrated in Figure 2.  A P2P mode
   DIO and a DRO (defined in Section 8) message MAY carry one Data
   Option.  A P2P-RDO consists of the following fields:

   o  Option Type: TBD3.

   o  Option Length: An 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length
      in octets of the option, not including the Option Type and Option
      Length fields.

   o  Upper Layer Protocol: An 8-bit field that identifies the upper
      layer protocol header with which the information in the Data field
      starts.  The protocol identifiers used in this field are same as



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      those defined in IANA's "Protocol Numbers" registry [PROTOCOL].

   o  Data: If the Data Option is contained in a DIO, this field
      contains application data to be delivered to the Target(s).  If
      the Data Option is contained in a DRO, this field contains
      application data to be delivered to the Origin.

   If the Origin chooses to include a Data Option inside its DIO, it
   MUST include the same Data Option in all its future DIO transmissions
   for this temporary DAG.  An Intermediate Router MUST NOT modify the
   Data Option received inside a parent's DIO and MUST include this Data
   Option in all its future DIO transmissions for this temporary DAG.
   The same is true for a Target that needs to propagate the DIOs
   further (required when the route discovery involves multiple
   Targets).  If a Target chooses to include a Data Option inside a DRO,
   it MUST include the same Data Option in all retransmissions of this
   DRO message and MUST NOT include a different Data Option in any other
   DRO messages it generates for this route discovery.  Also, an
   Intermediate Router, which needs to forward a received DRO message
   further, MUST include in the forwarded message a verbatim copy of the
   Data Option found inside the received message.

   Note that the data inside a Data Option has the same level of
   security as the DIO/DRO message it is part of.  A P2P-RPL deployment
   SHOULD take in consideration the security requirements of the data
   being sent inside the Data Options when deciding the overall security
   requirements.  Further, note that P2P-RPL does not guarantee
   successful delivery of the data contained in a Data Option.


8.  The Discovery Reply Object (DRO)

   This section defines two new RPL Control Message types, the Discovery
   Reply Object (DRO), with code TBD4, and the Secure DRO, with code
   TBD5.  A DRO serves one of the following functions:

   o  Carry a discovered Source Route from a Target to the Origin;

   o  Establish a Hop-by-hop Route as it travels from a Target to the
      Origin.

   A DRO message MAY serve the function of letting the routers in the
   LLN know that a P2P-RPL route discovery is complete and no more DIO
   messages need to be generated for the corresponding temporary DAG.  A
   DRO message MAY also carry time-critical application data from the
   Target to the Origin in a Data Option.  A DRO message MUST carry one
   (and only one) P2P-RDO whose Target field MUST contain a unicast IPv6
   address of the Target that generated the DRO.  A DRO message travels



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   from the Target to the Origin via link-local multicast along the
   route specified inside the Address vector in the P2P-RDO.

       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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | RPLInstanceID |    Version    |S|A|Seq|     Reserved          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                         DODAGID                               |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Option(s)...
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...


         Figure 3: Format of the base Discovery Reply Object (DRO)

   The format of the base Discovery Reply Object (DRO) is shown in
   Figure 3.  A base DRO consists of the following fields:

   o  RPLInstanceID: The RPLInstanceID of the temporary DAG used for
      route discovery.

   o  Version: The Version of the temporary DAG used for route
      discovery.  Since a temporary DAG always has value zero for the
      Version, this field MUST always be set to zero.

   o  Stop (S): This flag, when set to one by a Target, indicates that
      the P2P-RPL route discovery is over.  All the routers receiving
      such a DRO, including the ones not listed in the route carried
      inside P2P-RDO,

      *  SHOULD NOT process any more DIOs received for this temporary
         DAG;

      *  SHOULD NOT generate any more DIOs for this temporary DAG;

      *  SHOULD cancel any pending DIO transmission for this temporary
         DAG.

      Note that the Stop flag serves to stop further DIO generation/
      processing for a P2P-RPL route discovery but it does not affect
      the processing of DRO messages at either the Origin or the
      Intermediate Routers.  In other words, a router (the Origin or an
      Intermediate Router) MUST continue to process the DRO messages
      even if an earlier DRO message (with the same RPLInstanceID and



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      DODAGID fields) had the Stop flag set to one.

   o  Ack Required (A): This flag, when set to one by the Target,
      indicates that the Origin MUST unicast a DRO-ACK message (defined
      in Section 10) to the Target when it receives the DRO.

   o  Sequence Number (Seq): This 2-bit field indicates the sequence
      number for the DRO.  This field is relevant when the A flag is set
      to one, i.e., the Target requests an acknowledgement from the
      Origin for a received DRO.  The Origin includes the RPLInstanceID,
      the DODAGID and the Sequence Number of the received DRO inside the
      DRO-ACK message it sends back to the Target.

   o  Reserved: These bits are reserved for future use.  These bits MUST
      be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.

   o  DODAGID: The DODAGID of the temporary DAG used for route
      discovery.  The DODAGID also identifies the Origin.  The
      RPLInstanceID, the Version and the DODAGID together uniquely
      identify the temporary DAG used for route discovery and can be
      copied from the DIO message advertizing the temporary DAG.

   o  Options: The DRO message:

      *  MUST carry one (and only one) P2P-RDO that MUST specify a
         complete route between the Target and the Origin;

      *  MAY carry one or more Metric Container Options that contains
         the aggregated routing metrics values for the route specified
         in P2P-RDO;

      *  MAY carry one Data Option to carry any time-critical
         application data to the Origin, subject to the following
         conditions: if a Target chooses to include a Data Option inside
         a DRO,

         +  it MUST include the same Data Option in all retransmissions
            of this DRO message and

         +  it MUST NOT include a different Data Option in any other DRO
            messages it generates for this route discovery.

         The Target MAY repeat the same Data Option in multiple DRO
         messages it generates for a particular route discovery.

      A received DRO message MUST be discarded if it does not contain
      exactly one P2P-RDO or if it contains multiple Data Options.




Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


8.1.  Secure DRO

   A Secure DRO message follows the format in Figure 7 of [RFC6550],
   where the base format is the base DRO shown in Figure 3.

8.2.  Setting a P2P-RDO Carried in a Discovery Reply Object

   A Discovery Reply Object MUST carry one (and only one) P2P-RDO, which
   MUST be set as defined in Section 7.1.  Specifically, the following
   fields MUST be set as specified next:

   o  Reply (R): This flag MUST be set to zero on transmission and
      ignored on reception.

   o  Hop-by-Hop (H): The H flag in the P2P-RDO included in a DRO
      message MUST have the same value as the H flag in the P2P-RDO
      inside the corresponding DIO message.

   o  Number of Routes (N): This field MUST be set to zero on
      transmission and ignored on reception.

   o  Life Time (L): This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and
      ignored on reception.

   o  MaxRank/NH: This field indicates the index of the next hop address
      in the Address vector.  When a Target generates a DRO message, the
      NH field is set to n = (Option Length - 2 - (16 - Compr))/(16 -
      Compr).

   o  Target: This field MUST contain a unicast IPv6 address of the
      Target generating the DRO.

   o  Address[1..n]: The Address vector MUST contain a complete route
      between the Origin and the Target such that the first element in
      the vector contains the IPv6 address of the router next to the
      Origin and the last element contains the IPv6 address of the
      router next to the Target.


9.  P2P-RPL Route Discovery By Creating a Temporary DAG

   This section details the P2P-RPL route discovery operation.

9.1.  Joining a Temporary DAG

   All the routers participating in a P2P-RPL route discovery, including
   the Origin and the Target(s), MUST join the temporary DAG being
   created for the purpose.  When a router joins a temporary DAG



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   advertized by a P2P mode DIO, it SHOULD maintain its membership in
   the temporary DAG for the suggested Life Time duration listed in the
   P2P-RDO.  The only purpose of a temporary DAG's existence is to
   facilitate the P2P-RPL route discovery process.  The temporary DAG
   MUST NOT be used to route packets.  A router SHOULD detach from the
   temporary DAG once the duration of its membership in the DAG has
   exceeded the DAG's life time.  After receiving a DRO with the Stop
   flag set to one, a router SHOULD NOT send or receive any more DIOs
   for this temporary DAG and SHOULD also cancel any pending DIO
   transmission.

9.2.  Trickle Operation For P2P Mode DIOs

   An RPL router uses a Trickle timer [RFC6206] to control DIO
   transmissions.  The Trickle control of DIO transmissions provides
   quick resolution of any "inconsistency" while avoiding redundant DIO
   transmissions.  The Trickle algorithm also imparts protection against
   loss of DIOs due to inherent lack of reliability in LLNs.  When
   controlling the transmissions of a P2P mode DIO, a Trickle timer
   SHOULD follow the following rules:

   o  The receipt of a P2P mode DIO, that allows the router to advertise
      a better route (in terms of the routing metrics and the OF in use)
      than before, is considered "inconsistent" and hence resets the
      Trickle timer.  Note that the first receipt of a P2P mode DIO
      advertising a particular temporary DAG is always considered an
      "inconsistent" event.

   o  The receipt of a P2P mode DIO from a parent in the temporary DAG
      is considered neither "consistent" nor "inconsistent" if it does
      not allow the router to advertise a better route than before.
      Thus, the receipt of such DIOs has no impact on the Trickle
      operation.  Note that this document does not impose any
      requirements on how a router might choose its parents in the
      temporary DAG.

   o  The receipt of a P2P mode DIO is considered "consistent" if the
      source of the DIO is not a parent in the temporary DAG and either
      of the following conditions is true:

      *  The DIO advertises a better route than the router but does not
         allow the router to advertise a better route itself; or

      *  The DIO advertises a route as good as the route (to be)
         advertised by the router.

      Note that Trickle algorithm's DIO suppression rules are in effect
      at all times.  Hence, a P2P-RPL router may suppress a DIO



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      transmission even if it has not made any DIO transmission yet.

   o  The receipt of a P2P mode DIO, that advertises a worse route than
      what the router advertises (or would advertise when it gets a
      chance to generate its DIO), is considered neither "consistent"
      nor "inconsistent", i.e., the receipt of such a DIO has no impact
      on the Trickle operation.

   o  The Imin parameter SHOULD be set taking in account the
      connectivity within the network.  For highly connected networks, a
      small Imin value (of the order of the typical transmission delay
      for a DIO) may lead to congestion in the network as a large number
      of routers reset their Trickle timers in response to the first
      receipt of a DIO from the Origin.  These routers would generate
      their DIOs within Imin interval and cause additional routers to
      reset their trickle timers and generate more DIOs.  Thus, for
      highly connected networks, the Imin parameter SHOULD be set to a
      value at least one order of magnitude larger than the typical
      transmission delay for a DIO.  For sparsely connected networks,
      the Imin parameter can be set to a value that is a small multiple
      of the typical transmission delay for a DIO.  Note that the Imin
      value has a direct impact on the time required for a P2P-RPL route
      discovery to complete.  In general, the time required for a P2P-
      RPL route discovery would increase approximately linearly with the
      value of the Imin parameter.  Since the route discovery must
      complete within the lifetime of the temporary DAG created for the
      purpose, the Origin should set this lifetime to a large enough
      value taking in account the Imin value as well as the expected
      distance (in terms of hops and/or ETX) to the Target(s).

   o  The Imax parameter SHOULD be set to a large value (several orders
      of magnitude higher than the Imin value) and is unlikely to be
      critical for P2P-RPL operation.  This is because the first receipt
      of a P2P mode DIO for a particular temporary DAG is considered an
      inconsistent event and would lead to resetting of Trickle timer
      duration to the Imin value.  Given the temporary nature of the
      DAGs used in P2P-RPL, Trickle timer may not get a chance to
      increase much.

   o  The recommended value of redundancy constant "k" is 1.  With this
      value of "k", a DIO transmission will be suppressed if the router
      receives even a single "consistent" DIO during a timer interval.
      This setting for the redundancy constant is designed to reduce the
      number of messages generated during a route discovery process and
      is suitable for environments with low or moderate packet loss
      rates.  A higher value for the redundancy constant may be more
      suitable in environments with high packet loss rates or in
      deployments where specific destinations are reachable only through



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      specific intermediate routers (and hence these intermediate
      routers should not suppress their DIOs).  A particular deployment
      should take in account typical loss rates, the topological
      characteristics of the LLN (the average/typical connectivity of
      the nodes and the variance in connectivity: whether some
      destinations have only a small set of neighbors) and the need to
      contain the message overhead of the route discovery when deciding
      the value of the redundancy constant.

   Individual P2P-RPL deployments are encouraged to share their
   experience with these rules with ROLL working group to help guide the
   development of standards track version of the protocol.
   Applicability Statements that specify the use of P2P-RPL MUST provide
   guidance for setting Trickle parameters, particularly Imin and the
   redundancy constant.

9.3.  Processing a P2P Mode DIO

   The rules for DIO processing and transmission, described in Section 8
   of RPL [RFC6550], apply to P2P mode DIOs as well except as modified
   in this document.  In particular, in accordance with Section 8.2.3 of
   RPL [RFC6550], a received P2P mode DIO MUST be discarded if it is
   malformed according to the rules specified in this document and in
   [RFC6550].

   The following rules for processing a received P2P mode DIO apply to
   both Intermediate Routers and the Target.

   A router SHOULD discard a received P2P mode DIO with no further
   processing if it does not have bidirectional reachability with the
   neighbor that generated the received DIO.  Note that bidirectional
   reachability does not mean that the link must have the same values
   for a routing metric in both directions.  A router SHOULD calculate
   the values of the link-level routing metrics included in the received
   DIO taking in account the metric's value in both Forward and Backward
   directions.  Bidirectional reachability along a discovered route
   allows the Target to use this route to reach the Origin.  In
   particular, the DRO messages travel from the Target to the Origin
   along a discovered route.

   A router MUST discard a received P2P mode DIO with no further
   processing:

   o  If the DIO advertises INFINITE_RANK as defined in [RFC6550].

   o  If the integer part of the rank advertised in the DIO equals or
      exceeds the MaxRank limit listed in the P2P Route Discovery
      Option.



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   o  If the router cannot evaluate the mandatory route constraints
      listed in the DIO or if the routing metric values do not satisfy
      one or more of the mandatory constraints.

   o  If the router previously received a DRO message with the same
      RPLInstanceID and DODAGID as the received DIO and with the Stop
      flag set to one.

   The router MUST check the Target addresses listed in the P2P-RDO and
   any RPL Target Options included in the received DIO.  If one of its
   IPv6 addresses is listed as a Target address or if it belongs to the
   multicast group specified as one of the Target addresses, the router
   considers itself a Target and processes the received DIO as specified
   in Section 9.5.  Otherwise, the router considers itself an
   Intermediate Router and processes the received DIO as specified in
   Section 9.4.

9.4.  Additional Processing of a P2P Mode DIO At An Intermediate Router

   An Intermediate Router MUST discard a received P2P mode DIO with no
   further processing if the router cannot elide Compr (as specified in
   the P2P-RDO) prefix octets from its IPv6 address or if adding its
   IPv6 address to the Address vector (inside the P2P-RDO) would result
   in the Address vector containing multiple, non-back-to-back addresses
   belonging to this router.

   On receiving a P2P mode DIO, an Intermediate Router MUST do the
   following:

   o  The router MUST determine whether this DIO advertises a better
      route than the router itself and whether the receipt of the DIO
      would allow the router to advertise a better route than before.
      Accordingly, the router SHOULD consider this DIO as consistent/
      inconsistent from Trickle perspective as described in Section 9.2.
      Note that the route comparison in a P2P-RPL route discovery is
      performed using the parent selection rules of the OF in use as
      specified in Section 14 of RPL [RFC6550].  If the received DIO
      would allow the router to advertise a better route, the router
      MUST remember the route advertised (inside the P2P-RDO) in the DIO
      (after adding its own IPv6 address to the route) for inclusion in
      its future DIOs.  When an Intermediate Router adds itself to a
      route, it MUST ensure that the IPv6 address added to the route is
      reachable in both Forward and Backward directions.  To improve the
      diversity of the routes being discovered, an Intermediate Router
      SHOULD keep track of multiple partial routes to be advertised in
      the P2P-RDO inside its DIO.  When the router generates its DIO, it
      SHOULD randomly select the partial route to be included in the
      P2P-RDO.  Note that the route accumulation in a P2P mode DIO MUST



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      take place even if the Origin does not want any DRO messages to be
      generated (i.e., the R flag inside the P2P-RDO is set to zero).
      This is because the Target may still be able to use the
      accumulated route as a source route to reach the Origin.

   o  The router MUST copy any Data Option (to be included in its future
      DIO transmissions) if the received DIO comes from a parent and is
      the first parent-originated DIO received with a Data Option
      inside.

9.5.  Additional Processing of a P2P Mode DIO At The Target

   The Target MUST determine if the received DIO contains a Data Option
   and deliver the data to the specified upper layer protocol unless it
   has already done so in response to a previously received DIO.  If
   this route discovery involves multiple Targets, the Target MUST
   remember this Data Option for inclusion in its own DIOs.

   The Target MAY store the route contained in the P2P-RDO in the
   received DIO for use as a Source Route to reach the Origin.  The
   lifetime of this Source Route is specified by the Default Lifetime
   and Lifetime Unit parameters inside the DODAG Configuration Option
   currently in effect.  This lifetime can be extended (or shortened)
   appropriately following a hint from an upper-layer protocol.

   If the Reply flag inside the P2P-RDO in the received DIO is zero, the
   Target MUST discard the received DIO with no further processing.
   Otherwise, the Target MAY select the route contained in the P2P-RDO
   to send a DRO message back to the Origin.  If the H flag inside the
   P2P-RDO is one, the Target needs to select one route and send a DRO
   message along this route back to the Origin.  If the H flag is zero,
   the number of routes to be selected (and the number of DRO messages
   to be sent back) is given by one plus the value of the N field in the
   P2P-RDO.  This document does not prescribe a particular method for
   the Target to select the routes.  Example methods include selecting
   each route that meets the specified routing constraints until the
   desired number have been selected or selecting the best routes
   discovered over a certain time period.  If multiple routes are to be
   selected, the Target SHOULD avoid selecting routes that have large
   segments in common.

   If the Target selects the route contained in the P2P-RDO in the
   received DIO, it sends a DRO message back to the Origin (identified
   by the DODAGID field in the DIO).  The DRO message MUST include a
   P2P-RDO that contains the selected route inside the Address vector.
   Various fields inside the P2P-RDO MUST be set as specified in
   Section 8.2.  The Target MAY set the A flag inside the DRO message to
   one if it desires the Origin to send back a DRO-ACK message on



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   receiving the DRO.  In this case, the Target waits for
   DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME duration for the DRO-ACK message to arrive.
   Failure to receive the DRO-ACK message within this time duration
   causes the Target to retransmit the DRO message.  The Target MAY
   retransmit the DRO message in this fashion up to
   MAX_DRO_RETRANSMISSIONS times.  Both DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME and
   MAX_DRO_RETRANSMISSIONS are configurable parameters to be decided
   based on the characteristics of individual deployments.  Note that
   all DRO transmissions and retransmissions MUST take place while the
   Target is still a part of the temporary DAG created for the route
   discovery.  A Target MUST NOT transmit a DRO if it no longer belongs
   to this DAG.

   The Target MAY set the Stop flag inside the DRO message to one if

   o  this router is the only Target specified in the corresponding DIO,
      i.e., the corresponding DIO specified a unicast address of the
      router as the Target inside the P2P-RDO with no additional Targets
      specified via RPL Target Options; and

   o  the Target has already selected the desired number of routes.

   The Target MAY include a Metric Container Option in the DRO message.
   This Metric Container contains the end-to-end routing metric values
   for the route specified in the P2P-RDO.  The Target MAY include one
   Data Option in the DRO message to carry time-critical application
   data for the Origin, subject to the conditions listed in Section 8.
   The Target MUST transmit the DRO message via a link-local multicast.

   A Target MUST NOT forward a P2P mode DIO any further if no other
   Targets are to be discovered, i.e., if a unicast IPv6 address (of
   this Target) is specified as the Target inside the P2P-RDO and no
   additional Targets are specified via RPL Target Options inside the
   DIOs for this route discovery.  Otherwise, the Target MUST generate
   DIOs for this route discovery as an Intermediate Router would.

9.6.  Processing a DRO At An Intermediate Router

   If the DODAGID field in the received DRO does not list a router's own
   IPv6 address, the router considers itself an Intermediate Router and
   MUST process the received message in the following manner:

   o  The router MUST discard the received DRO with no further
      processing if it does not belong to the temporary DAG identified
      by the RPLInstanceID and the DODAGID fields in the DRO.

   o  If the Stop flag inside the received DRO is set to one, the router
      SHOULD NOT send or receive any more DIOs for this temporary DAG



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      and SHOULD cancel any pending DIO transmission.

   o  The router MUST ignore any Metric Container and Data Options
      contained in the DRO message.

   o  If Address[NH] element inside the P2P-RDO lists the router's own
      unicast IPv6 address, the router is a part of the route carried in
      the P2P-RDO.  In this case, the router MUST do the following:

      *  To prevent loops, the router MUST discard the DRO message with
         no further processing if the Address vector in the P2P-RDO
         includes multiple IPv6 addresses assigned to the router's
         interfaces and if such addresses do not appear back to back
         inside the Address vector.

      *  If the H flag inside the P2P-RDO is one, the router MUST store
         the state for the forward hop-by-hop route carried inside the
         P2P-RDO.  This state consists of:

         +  The RPLInstanceID and the DODAGID fields of the DRO.

         +  The route's destination, the Target (identified by Target
            field inside P2P-RDO).

         +  The IPv6 address of the next hop, Address[NH+1] (unless NH
            value equals the number of elements in the Address vector,
            in which case the Target itself is the next hop).

         This hop-by-hop routing state MUST expire at the end of the
         lifetime specified by the Default Lifetime and Lifetime Unit
         parameters inside the DODAG Configuration Option used in P2P
         mode DIOs for this route discovery.

      *  If the router already maintains a hop-by-hop state listing the
         Target as the destination and carrying same RPLInstanceID and
         DODAGID fields as the received DRO and the next hop information
         in the state does not match the next hop indicated in the
         received DRO, the router MUST discard the DRO message with no
         further processing.

      *  The router MUST decrement the NH field inside the P2P-RDO and
         send the DRO message further via link-local multicast.

9.7.  Processing a DRO At The Origin

   When a router receives a DRO message that lists its IPv6 address in
   the DODAGID field, the router recognizes itself as the Origin for the
   corresponding P2P-RPL route discovery, notes the Target that



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   originated this message (from the Target field inside the P2P-RDO)
   and processes the message in the following manner:

   o  The Origin MUST discard the received DRO with no further
      processing if it no longer belongs to the temporary DAG identified
      by the RPLInstanceID and the DODAGID fields in the DRO.

   o  If the received DRO contains a Data Option and if it has not
      already done so following the receipt of an earlier DRO from this
      Target, the Origin MUST deliver the data inside the Data Option to
      the specified upper layer protocol.

   o  If the Stop flag inside the received DRO is set to one, the Origin
      SHOULD NOT generate any more DIOs for this temporary DAG and
      SHOULD cancel any pending DIO transmission.

   o  If the P2P-RDO inside the DRO has the H flag set to 0, the Address
      vector inside the P2P-RDO contains a Source Route to this Target
      and the Origin MUST store this Source Route in its memory.  The
      lifetime of this Source Route is specified by the Default Lifetime
      and Lifetime Unit parameters inside the DODAG Configuration Option
      in the P2P mode DIOs used for this route discovery.  This lifetime
      could be extended (or shortened) appropriately following a hint
      from an upper-layer protocol.

   o  If the P2P-RDO inside the DRO has the H flag set to 1, the DRO
      message is establishing a Hop-by-hop Route to this Target and the
      Origin MUST store in its memory the state for this Hop-by-hop
      Route in the manner described in Section 9.6.  This hop-by-hop
      routing state MUST expire at the end of the lifetime specified by
      the Default Lifetime and Lifetime Unit parameters inside the DODAG
      Configuration Option used in P2P mode DIOs for this route
      discovery.  The standards track version of P2P-RPL may consider
      specifying a signaling mechanism that will allow the Origin to
      extend (or shorten) the lifetime of a P2P-RPL Hop-by-hop Route
      following a suitable hint from an upper-layer protocol.

   o  If the received DRO message contains one or more Metric Container
      Options, the Origin MAY store the values of the routing metrics
      associated with the discovered route in its memory.  This
      information may be useful in formulating the constraints for any
      future P2P-RPL route discovery to this Target.

   o  If the A flag is set to one in the received DRO message, the
      Origin MUST generate a DRO-ACK message as described in Section 10
      and unicast the message to the Target.  The Origin MAY use the
      route just discovered to send the DRO-ACK message to the Target.
      Section 11 describes how a packet may be forwarded along a Source/



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      Hop-by-hop Route discovered using P2P-RPL.


10.  The Discovery Reply Object Acknowledgement (DRO-ACK)

       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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | RPLInstanceID |    Version    |Seq|        Reserved           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                         DODAGID                               |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


    Figure 4: Format of the base Discovery Reply Object Acknowledgement
                                 (DRO-ACK)

   A DRO message may fail to reach the Origin due to a number of
   reasons.  Unlike the DIO messages that benefit from Trickle-
   controlled retransmissions, the DRO messages are prone to loss due to
   unreliable packet transmission in LLNs.  Since a DRO message travels
   via link-local multicast, it cannot use link-level acknowledgements
   to improve the reliability of its transmission.  Also, an
   Intermediate Router may drop the DRO message (e.g., because of its
   inability to store the state for the Hop-by-hop Route the DRO is
   establishing).  To protect against the potential failure of a DRO
   message to reach the Origin, the Target MAY request the Origin to
   send back a DRO Acknowledgement (DRO-ACK) message on receiving a DRO
   message.  Failure to receive such an acknowledgement within the
   DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME interval of sending the DRO message forces the
   Target to resend the message.

   This section defines two new RPL Control Message types: DRO
   Acknowledgement (DRO-ACK; with code TBD6) and Secure DRO-ACK (with
   code TBD7).  A DRO-ACK message MUST travel as a unicast message from
   the Origin to the Target.  The format of a base DRO-ACK message is
   shown in Figure 4.  Various fields in a DRO-ACK message MUST have the
   same values as the corresponding fields in the DRO message.  The
   field marked as "Reserved" MUST be set to zero on transmission and
   MUST be ignored on reception.  A Secure DRO-ACK message follows the
   format in Figure 7 of [RFC6550], where the base format is same as the
   base DRO-ACK shown in Figure 4.






Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


11.  Packet Forwarding Along a Route Discovered Using P2P-RPL

   An Origin MAY use a Source Routing Header (SRH) [RFC6554] to send a
   packet along a Source Route discovered using P2P-RPL.

   Travel along a Hop-by-hop Route, established using P2P-RPL, requires
   specifying the RPLInstanceID and the DODAGID (of the temporary DAG
   used for the route discovery) to identify the route.  This is because
   a P2P-RPL route discovery does not use globally unique RPLInstanceID
   values and hence both the RPLInstanceID (a local value assigned by
   the Origin) and the DODAGID (an IPv6 address of the Origin) are
   required to uniquely identify a P2P-RPL Hop-by-hop Route to a
   particular destination.

   An Origin MAY include an RPL option [RFC6553] inside the IPv6 hop-by-
   hop options header of a packet to send it along a Hop-by-hop Route
   established using P2P-RPL.  For this purpose, the Origin MUST set the
   DODAGID of the temporary DAG used for the route discovery as the
   source IPv6 address of the packet.  Further, the Origin MUST specify
   inside the RPL option the RPLInstanceID of the temporary DAG used for
   the route discovery and set the O flag inside the RPL option to one.
   On receiving this packet, an Intermediate Router checks the O flag
   and correctly infer the source IPv6 address of the packet as the
   DODAGID of the Hop-by-hop Route.  The router then uses the DODAGID,
   the RPLInstanceID and the destination address to identify the routing
   state to be used to forward the packet further.


12.  Interoperability with Core RPL

   This section describes how RPL routers that implement P2P-RPL
   interact with RPL routers that do not.  In general, P2P-RPL operation
   does not affect core RPL operation and vice versa.  However, core RPL
   does allow a router to join a DAG as a leaf node even if it does not
   understand the Mode of Operation (MOP) used in the DAG.  Thus, an RPL
   router that does not implement P2P-RPL may conceivably join a
   temporary DAG being created for a P2P-RPL route discovery as a leaf
   node and maintain its membership even though the DAG no longer
   exists.  This may impose a drain on the router's memory.  However,
   such RPL-only leaf nodes do not interfere with P2P-RPL route
   discovery since a leaf node may only generate a DIO advertising an
   INFINITE_RANK and all routers implementing P2P-RPL are required to
   discard such DIOs.  Note that core RPL does not require a router to
   join a DAG whose MOP it does not understand.  Moreover, RPL routers
   in a particular deployment may have strict restrictions on the DAGs
   they may join, thereby mitigating the problem.

   The P2P-RPL mechanism described in this document works best when all



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   the RPL routers in the LLN implement P2P-RPL.  In general, the
   ability to discover routes as well as the quality of discovered
   routes would deteriorate with the fraction of RPL routers that
   implement P2P-RPL.


13.  Security Considerations

   A P2P-RPL deployment may be susceptible to denial of service attacks
   by rogue routers that initiate fake route discoveries.  A rogue
   router could join a temporary DAG and advertise false information in
   its DIOs in order to include itself in the discovered route(s).  It
   could generate bogus DRO messages carrying bad routes or maliciously
   modify genuine DRO messages it receives.

   In general, the security considerations for the operation of P2P-RPL
   are similar to the ones for the operation of RPL (as described in
   Section 19 of [RFC6550]).  Section 10 of RPL specification [RFC6550]
   describes a variety of security mechanisms that provide data
   confidentiality, authentication, replay protection and delay
   protection services.  Each RPL control message has a secure version
   that allows the specification of the level of security and the
   algorithms used to secure the message.  The mechanism defined in this
   document is based on the use of DIOs to form a temporary DAG and
   discover P2P routes.  These DIOs can be used in their secure versions
   if desired.  New RPL control messages defined in this document (DRO
   and DRO-ACK) have secure versions as well.  In addition, a P2P-RPL
   deployment may use the security features provided by the link layer
   in use.  Thus, a particular P2P-RPL deployment can analyze its
   security requirements and use the appropriate set of RPL (or link
   layer) security mechanisms that meet those requirements.  Note that
   the contents of the Data Option, if used, has the same level of
   security as the DIO/DRO message it is part of.  Hence, a P2P-RPL
   deployment SHOULD take in consideration the security requirements of
   the data being sent inside the Data Options when deciding the overall
   security requirements.

   Since a DRO message travels along a Source Route specified inside the
   message, some of the security concerns that led to the deprecation of
   Type 0 routing header [RFC5095] may apply.  To avoid the possibility
   of a DRO message traveling in a routing loop, this document requires
   each Intermediate Router to confirm that the Source Route listed
   inside the message does not contain any routing loop involving itself
   before the router could forward the message further.  As specified in
   Section 9.6, this check involves the router making sure that its IPv6
   addresses do not appear multiple times inside the Source Route with
   one or more other IPv6 addresses in between.




Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


14.  IANA Considerations

14.1.  Additions to Mode of Operation

   This document defines a new Mode of Operation, entitled "P2P Route
   Discovery Mode" (see Section 6), assigned a value TBD1 from the "Mode
   of Operation" space [to be removed upon publication:
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xml#mop] [RFC6550].  IANA is
   requested to allocate a suitable value to TBD1.  The string TBD1 in
   this document should be replaced by the allocated value.  The
   previous two sentences should be removed before publication.

     +-------+---------------------------------------+---------------+
     | Value |              Description              |   Reference   |
     +-------+---------------------------------------+---------------+
     |  TBD1 | P2P Route Discovery Mode of Operation | This document |
     +-------+---------------------------------------+---------------+

                             Mode of Operation

14.2.  Additions to RPL Control Message Options

   This document defines two new RPL options:

   o  "P2P Route Discovery Option" (see Section 7.1), assigned a value
      TBD2 from the "RPL Control Message Options" space [to be removed
      upon publication: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/
      rpl.xml#control-message-options] [RFC6550].  IANA is requested to
      allocate a suitable value to TBD2.  The string TBD2 in this
      document should be replaced by the allocated value.  The previous
      two sentences should be removed before publication.

   o  "Data Option" (see Section 7.2), assigned a value TBD3 from the
      "RPL Control Message Options" space [to be removed upon
      publication: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/
      rpl.xml#control-message-options] [RFC6550].  IANA is requested to
      allocate a suitable value to TBD3.  The string TBD3 in this
      document should be replaced by the allocated value.  The previous
      two sentences should be removed before publication.












Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


              +-------+---------------------+---------------+
              | Value |       Meaning       |   Reference   |
              +-------+---------------------+---------------+
              |  TBD2 | P2P Route Discovery | This document |
              |  TBD3 |         Data        | This document |
              +-------+---------------------+---------------+

                        RPL Control Message Options

14.3.  Additions to RPL Control Codes

   This document defines the following new RPL messages:

   o  "Discovery Reply Object" (see Section 8), assigned a value TBD4
      from the "RPL Control Codes" space [to be removed upon
      publication:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xml#control-codes]
      [RFC6550].  IANA is requested to allocate TBD4 from the range
      0x00-0x7F to indicate a message without security enabled.  The
      string TBD4 in this document should be replaced by the allocated
      value.  The previous two sentences should be removed before
      publication.

   o  "Secure Discovery Reply Object" (see Section 8.1), assigned a
      value TBD5 from the "RPL Control Codes" space [to be removed upon
      publication:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xml#control-codes]
      [RFC6550].  IANA is requested to allocate TBD5 from the range
      0x80-0xFF to indicate a message with security enabled.  The string
      TBD5 in this document should be replaced by the allocated value.
      The previous two sentences should be removed before publication.

   o  "Discovery Reply Object Acknowledgement" (see Section 10),
      assigned a value TBD6 from the "RPL Control Codes" space [to be
      removed upon publication:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xml#control-codes]
      [RFC6550].  IANA is requested to allocate TBD6 from the range
      0x00-0x7F to indicate a message without security enabled.  The
      string TBD6 in this document should be replaced by the allocated
      value.  The previous two sentences should be removed before
      publication.

   o  "Secure Discovery Reply Object Acknowledgement" (see Section 10),
      assigned a value TBD7 from the "RPL Control Codes" space [to be
      removed upon publication:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xml#control-codes]
      [RFC6550].  IANA is requested to allocate TBD7 from the range
      0x80-0xFF to indicate a message with security enabled.  The string



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


      TBD7 in this document should be replaced by the allocated value.
      The previous two sentences should be removed before publication.

   +------+--------------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Code |                 Description                |   Reference   |
   +------+--------------------------------------------+---------------+
   | TBD4 |           Discovery Reply Object           | This document |
   | TBD5 |        Secure Discovery Reply Object       | This document |
   | TBD6 |   Discovery Reply Object Acknowledgement   | This document |
   | TBD7 |        Secure Discovery Reply Object       | This document |
   |      |               Acknowledgement              |               |
   +------+--------------------------------------------+---------------+

                             RPL Control Codes


15.  Acknowledgements

   Authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following
   individuals (in alphabetical order) in the development of this
   document: Dominique Barthel, Jakob Buron, Cedric Chauvenet, Thomas
   Clausen, Robert Cragie, Ted Humpal, Richard Kelsey, Phil Levis,
   Charles Perkins, Joseph Reddy, Michael Richardson, Zach Shelby,
   Pascal Thubert, Hristo Valev and JP Vasseur.


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [PROTOCOL]
              "Protocol Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
              protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xml>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6206]  Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
              "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, March 2011.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
              Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
              Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.



Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


   [RFC6551]  Vasseur, JP., Kim, M., Pister, K., Dejean, N., and D.
              Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation in
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551, March 2012.

16.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-roll-p2p-measurement]
              Goyal, M., Baccelli, E., Brandt, A., and J. Martocci, "A
              Mechanism to Measure the Quality of a Point-to-point Route
              in a Low Power and Lossy Network",
              draft-ietf-roll-p2p-measurement-06 (work in progress),
              September 2012.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              December 2007.

   [RFC5826]  Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation
              Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks",
              RFC 5826, April 2010.

   [RFC5867]  Martocci, J., De Mil, P., Riou, N., and W. Vermeylen,
              "Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 5867, June 2010.

   [RFC6552]  Thubert, P., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
              Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)",
              RFC 6552, March 2012.

   [RFC6553]  Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
              Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
              Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
              March 2012.

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
              March 2012.













Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15          December 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Mukul Goyal (editor)
   University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
   3200 N Cramer St
   Milwaukee, WI  53201
   USA

   Phone: +1 414 2295001
   Email: mukul@uwm.edu


   Emmanuel Baccelli
   INRIA

   Phone: +33-169-335-511
   Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr
   URI:   http://www.emmanuelbaccelli.org/


   Matthias Philipp
   INRIA

   Phone: +33-169-335-511
   Email: Matthias.Philipp@inria.fr


   Anders Brandt
   Sigma Designs
   Emdrupvej 26A, 1.
   Copenhagen, Dk-2100
   Denmark

   Phone: +45-29609501
   Email: abr@sdesigns.dk


   Jerald Martocci
   Johnson Controls
   507 E Michigan St
   Milwaukee, WI  53202
   USA

   Phone: +1 414-524-4010
   Email: jerald.p.martocci@jci.com






Goyal, et al.             Expires June 15, 2013                [Page 35]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/