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

Versions: (draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch) 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch

6lo                                                      P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                              C. Bormann
Expires: July 18, 2016                                    Uni Bremen TZI
                                                              L. Toutain
                                                    IMT-TELECOM Bretagne
                                                               R. Cragie
                                                                     ARM
                                                        January 15, 2016


              6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches
                   draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-03

Abstract

   This specification introduces a new 6LoWPAN dispatch type for use in
   6LoWPAN Route-Over topologies, that initially covers the needs of RPL
   (RFC6550) data packets compression.  Using this dispatch type, this
   specification defines a method to compress RPL Option (RFC6553)
   information and Routing Header type 3 (RFC6554), an efficient IP-in-
   IP technique and is extensible for more applications.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 July 18, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Using the Page Dispatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  New Routing Header Dispatch (6LoRH) . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Placement Of The 6LoRH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  6LoWPAN Routing Header General Format . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Elective Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Critical Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  The Routing Header Type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH Header  . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  The RPL Packet Information 6LoRH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Compressing the RPLInstanceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Compressing the SenderRank  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.3.  The Overall RPI-6LoRH encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  The IP-in-IP 6LoRH Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Reserving Space in 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1  . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Nex 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type Registry  . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   The design of Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally
   focused on saving energy, a very constrained resource in most cases.
   The other constraints, such as the memory capacity and the duty
   cycling of the LLN devices, derive from that primary concern.  Energy
   is often available from primary batteries that are expected to last
   for years, or is scavenged from the environment in very limited
   quantities.  Any protocol that is intended for use in LLNs must be
   designed with the primary concern of saving energy as a strict
   requirement.

   Controlling the amount of data transmission is one possible venue to
   save energy.  In a number of LLN standards, the frame size is limited



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   to much smaller values than the IPv6 maximum transmission unit (MTU)
   of 1280 bytes.  In particular, an LLN that relies on the classical
   Physical Layer (PHY) of IEEE 802.15.4 [IEEE802154] is limited to 127
   bytes per frame.  The need to compress IPv6 packets over IEEE
   802.15.4 led to the 6LoWPAN Header Compression [RFC6282] work
   (6LoWPAN-HC).

   Innovative Route-over techniques have been and are still being
   developed for routing inside a LLN.  In a general fashion, such
   techniques require additional information in the packet to provide
   loop prevention and to indicate information such as flow
   identification, source routing information, etc.

   For reasons such as security and the capability to send ICMP errors
   back to the source, an original packet must not be tampered with, and
   any information that must be inserted in or removed from an IPv6
   packet must be placed in an extra IP-in-IP encapsulation.  This is
   the case when the additional routing information is inserted by a
   router on the path of a packet, for instance a mesh root, as opposed
   to the source node.  This is also the case when some routing
   information must be removed from a packet that flows outside the LLN.
   When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
   [I-D.robles-roll-useofrplinfo] details different cases where RFC
   6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the
   bases to help defining the compression of RPL routing information in
   LLN environments.

   When using [RFC6282] the outer IP header of an IP-in-IP encapsulation
   may be compressed down to 2 octets in stateless compression and down
   to 3 octets in stateful compression when context information must be
   added.

      0                                       1
      0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   0   1   2   3   4   5
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | 0 | 1 | 1 |  TF   |NH | HLIM  |CID|SAC|  SAM  | M |DAC|  DAM  |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

              Figure 1: LOWPAN_IPHC base Encoding (RFC6282).

   The Stateless Compression of an IPv6 addresses can only happen if the
   IPv6 address can de deduced from the MAC addresses, meaning that the
   IP end point is also the MAC-layer endpoint.  This is generally not
   the case in a RPL network which is generally a multi-hop route-over
   (i.e., operated at Layer-3) network.  A better compression, which
   does not involve variable compressions depending on the hop in the
   mesh, can be achieved based on the fact that the outer encapsulation
   is usually between the source (or destination) of the inner packet



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   and the root.  Also, the inner IP header can only be compressed by
   [RFC6282] if all the fields preceding it are also compressed.  This
   specification makes the inner IP header the first header to be
   compressed by [RFC6282], and keeps the inner packet encoded the same
   way whether it is encapsulated or not, thus preserving existing
   implementations.

   As an example, the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks
   [RFC6550] (RPL) is designed to optimize the routing operations in
   constrained LLNs.  As part of this optimization, RPL requires the
   addition of RPL Packet Information (RPI) in every packet, as defined
   in Section 11.2 of [RFC6550].

   The RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams
   [RFC6553] specification indicates how the RPI can be placed in a RPL
   Option for use in an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header.

   This representation demands a total of 8 bytes, while in most cases
   the actual RPI payload requires only 19 bits.  Since the Hop-by-Hop
   header must not flow outside of the RPL domain, it must be inserted
   in packets entering the domain and be removed from packets that leave
   the domain.  In both cases, this operation implies an IP-in-IP
   encapsulation.

           ------+---------                            ^
                 |          Internet                   |
                 |                                     | Native IPv6
              +-----+                                  |
              |     | Border Router (RPL Root)    ^    |    ^
              |     |                             |    |    |
              +-----+                             |    |    | IPv6 in
                 |                                |    |    | IPv6
           o    o   o    o                        |    |    | + RPI
       o o   o  o   o  o  o o   o                 |    |    |  or RH3
      o  o o  o o    o   o   o  o  o              |    |    |
      o   o    o  o     o  o    o  o  o           |    |    |
     o  o   o  o   o         o   o o              v    v    v
     o          o             o     o
                       LLN

             Figure 2: IP-in-IP Encapsulation within the LLN.

   Additionally, in the case of the Non-Storing Mode of Operation (MOP),
   RPL requires a Routing Header type 3 (RH3) as defined in the IPv6
   Routing Header for Source Routes with RPL [RFC6554] specification,
   for all packets that are routed down a RPL graph.  With Non-Storing
   RPL, even if the source is a node in the same LLN, the packet must
   first reach up the graph to the root so that the root can insert the



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   RH3 to go down the graph.  In any fashion, whether the packet was
   originated in a node in the LLN or outside the LLN, and regardless of
   whether the packet stays within the LLN or not, as long as the source
   of the packet is not the root itself, the source-routing operation
   also implies an IP-in-IP encapsulation at the root in order to insert
   the RH3.

   6TiSCH [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] specifies the operation of IPv6
   over the TimeSlotted Channel Hopping [RFC7554] (TSCH) mode of
   operation of IEEE 802.15.4.  The architecture requires the use of
   both RPL and the 6lo adaptation layer over IEEE 802.15.4.  Because it
   inherits the constraints on frame size from the MAC layer, 6TiSCH
   cannot afford to allocate 8 bytes per packet on the RPI.  Hence the
   requirement for 6LoWPAN header compression of the RPI.

   An extensible compression technique is required that simplifies IP-
   in-IP encapsulation when it is needed, and optimally compresses
   existing routing artifacts found in RPL LLNs.

   This specification extends the 6lo adaptation layer framework
   ([RFC4944],[RFC6282]) so as to carry routing information for route-
   over networks based on RPL.  The specification includes the formats
   necessary for RPL and is extensible for additional formats.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

   The Terminology used in this document is consistent with and
   incorporates that described in `Terminology in Low power And Lossy
   Networks' [RFC7102] and [RFC6550].

   The terms Route-over and Mesh-under are defined in [RFC6775].

   Other terms in use in LLNs are found in [RFC7228].

   The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
   "octet".

3.  Using the Page Dispatch

   The6LoWPAN Paging Dispatch [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch]
   specification extends the 6lo adaptation layer framework ([RFC4944],
   [RFC6282]) by introducing a concept of "context" in the 6LoWPAN




Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   parser, a context being identified by a Page number.  The
   specification defines 16 Pages.

   This draft operates within Page 1, which is indicated by a Dispatch
   Value of binary 11110001.

3.1.  New Routing Header Dispatch (6LoRH)

   This specification introduces a new 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH) to
   carry IPv6 routing information.  The 6LoRH may contain source routing
   information such as a compressed form of RH3, as well as other sorts
   of routing information such as the RPI and IP-in-IP encapsulation.

   The 6LoRH is expressed in a 6loWPAN packet as a Type-Length-Value
   (TLV) field, which is extensible for future use.

   This specification uses the bit pattern 10xxxxxx in Page 1 for the
   new 6LoRH Dispatch.  Section 4 describes how RPL artifacts in data
   packets can be compressed as 6LoRH headers.

3.2.  Placement Of The 6LoRH

   In a zone of a packet where Page 1 is active (i.e., once a Page 1
   Paging Dispatch is parsed and no subsequent Paging Dispatch has been
   parsed, the parsing of the packet MUST follow this specification if
   the 6LoRH Bit Pattern Section 3.1 is found.

   With this specification, the 6LoRH Dispatch is only defined in Page
   1, so it MUST be placed in the packet in a zone where the Page 1
   context is active.

   One or more 6LoRH header(s) MAY be placed in a 6LoWPAN packet.  A
   6LoRH header MUST always be placed before the LOWPAN_IPHC as defined
   in 6LoWPAN Header Compression [RFC6282].

   Because a 6LoRH header requires a Page 1 context, it MUST always be
   placed after any Fragmentation Header and/or Mesh Header [RFC4944].

4.  6LoWPAN Routing Header General Format

   The 6LoRH reuses in Page 1 the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of
   10xxxxxx.

   The Dispatch Value Bit Pattern is split in two forms of 6LoRH:

      Elective (6LoRHE) that may skipped if not understood

      Critical (6LoRHC) that may not be ignored



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


4.1.  Elective Format

   The 6LoRHE uses the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of 101xxxxx.  A 6LoRHE
   may be ignored and skipped in parsing.  If it is ignored, the 6LoRHE
   is forwarded with no change inside the LLN.

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...        -+
      |1|0|1| Length  |      Type     |                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...        -+
                                       <--    Length    -->

                Figure 3: Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header.

   Length:
      Length of the 6LoRHE expressed in bytes, excluding the first 2
      bytes.  This enables a node to skip a 6LoRHE header that it does
      not support and/or cannot parse, for instance if the Type is not
      recognized.

   Type:
      Type of the 6LoRHE

4.2.  Critical Format

   The 6LoRHC uses the Dispatch Value Bit Pattern of 100xxxxx.

   A node which does not support the 6LoRHC Type MUST silently discard
   the packet.

   Note: The situation where a node receives a message with a Critical
   6LoWPAN Routing Header that it does not understand is a critical
   administrative error whereby the wrong device is placed in a network.
   It makes no sense to overburden the constrained device with code that
   would send an ICMP error to the source.  Rather, it is expected that
   the device will raise some management alert indicating that it cannot
   operate in this network for that reason.  As a result, there is no
   provision for the exchange of error messages for this situation, so
   it should be avoided by judicious use of administrative control and/
   or capability indications by the device manufacturer.










Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


     0                   1
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-              ...               -+
    |1|0|0|   TSE   |      Type     |                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-              ...               -+
                                     <-- Length implied by Type/TSE -->

                Figure 4: Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header.

   TSE:
      Type Specific Extension.  The meaning depends on the Type, which
      must be known in all of the nodes.  The interpretation of the TSE
      depends on the Type field that follows.  For instance, it may be
      used to transport control bits, the number of elements in an
      array, or the length of the remainder of the 6LoRHC expressed in a
      unit other than bytes.

   Type:
      Type of the 6LoRHC

5.  The Routing Header Type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH Header

   The Routing Header type 3 (RH3) 6LoRH (RH3-6LoRH) header is a
   Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that provides a compressed form for
   the RH3, as defined in [RFC6554] for use by RPL routers.  Routers
   that need to forward a packet with a RH3-6LoRH are expected to be RPL
   routers and are expected to support this specification.  If a non-RPL
   router receives a packet with a RH3-6LoRH, this means that there was
   a routing error and the packet should be dropped so the Type cannot
   be ignored.

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-    -+-    -+ ... +-    -+
      |1|0|0|  Size   |6LoRH Type 0..4| Hop1 | Hop2 |     | HopN |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-    -+-    -+ ... +-    -+

            Size indicates the number of compressed addresses

                         Figure 5: The RH3-6LoRH.

   The values for the RH3-6LoRH Type are an enumeration, 0 to 4.  The
   form of compression is indicated by the Type.  The unit (as a number
   of bytes) in which the Size is expressed depends on the Type as
   described in Figure 6:






Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


     +-----------+-----------+
     |   Type    | Size Unit |
     +-----------+-----------+
     |    0      |      1    |
     |    1      |      2    |
     |    2      |      4    |
     |    3      |      8    |
     |    4      |     16    |
     +-----------+-----------+

                      Figure 6: The RH3-6LoRH Types.

   In the case of a RH3-6LoRH header, the TSE field is used as a Size,
   which encodes the number of hops minus 1; so a Size of 0 means one
   hop, and the maximum that can be encoded is 32 hops.  (If more than
   32 hops need to be expressed, a sequence of RH3-6LoRH elements can be
   employed.)

   The Next Hop is indicated in the first entry of the first RH3-6LoRH
   header.  Upon reception, the router checks whether the address
   indicated as Next Hop is one of its own addresses, which MUST be the
   case in a strict source-routing environment.  In that case, the entry
   is removed from the RH3-6LoRH header and the Size is decremented.  If
   that makes the Size zero, the whole RH3-6LoRH header is removed.  If
   there are no more RH3-6LoRH headers, the processing node is the last
   router on the path, which may or may not be collocated with the final
   destination.

   The last hop in the last RH3-6LoRH is the last router on the way to
   the destination in the LLN.  In a classical RPL network, all nodes
   are routers so the last hop is effectively the destination as well,
   but in the general case, even when there is a RH3-6LoRH header
   present, the address of the final destination is always indicated in
   the LoWPAN_IPHC [RFC6282].

   If some bits of the first address in the RH3-6LoRH header can be
   derived from the final destination in the LoWPAN_IPHC, then that
   address may be compressed; otherwise it is expressed as a full IPv6
   address of 128 bits.  Next addresses only need to express the delta
   from the previous address.

   All addresses in a given RH3-6LoRH header are compressed in an
   identical fashion, down to using the identical number of bytes per
   address.  In order to get different degrees of compression, multiple
   consecutive RH3-6LoRH headers MUST be used






Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


6.  The RPL Packet Information 6LoRH

   [RFC6550], Section 11.2, specifies the RPL Packet Information (RPI)
   as a set of fields that are placed by RPL routers in IP packets for
   the purpose of Instance Identification, as well as Loop Avoidance and
   Detection.

   In particular, the SenderRank, which is the scalar metric computed by
   a specialized Objective Function such as [RFC6552], indicates the
   Rank of the sender and is modified at each hop.  The SenderRank field
   is used to validate that the packet progresses in the expected
   direction, either upwards or downwards, along the DODAG.

   RPL defines the RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane
   Datagrams [RFC6553] to transport the RPI, which is carried in an IPv6
   Hop-by-Hop Options Header [RFC2460], typically consuming eight bytes
   per packet.

   With [RFC6553], the RPL option is encoded as six octets, which must
   be placed in a Hop-by-Hop header that consumes two additional octets
   for a total of eight octets.  To limit the header's range to just the
   RPL domain, the Hop-by-Hop header must be added to (or removed from)
   packets that cross the border of the RPL domain.

   The 8-byte overhead is detrimental to LLN operation, in particular
   with regards to bandwidth and battery constraints.  These bytes may
   cause a containing frame to grow above maximum frame size, leading to
   Layer 2 or 6LoWPAN [RFC4944] fragmentation, which in turn leads to
   even more energy expenditure and issues discussed in LLN Fragment
   Forwarding and Recovery [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments].

   An additional overhead comes from the need, in certain cases, to add
   an IP-in-IP encapsulation to carry the Hop-by-Hop header.  This is
   needed when the router that inserts the Hop-by-Hop header is not the
   source of the packet, so that an error can be returned to the router.
   This is also the case when a packet originated by a RPL node must be
   stripped from the Hop-by-Hop header to be routed outside the RPL
   domain.

   For that reason, this specification defines an IP-in-IP-6LoRH header
   in Section 7, but it must be noted that removal of a 6LoRH header
   does not require manipulation of the packet in the LOWPAN_IPHC, and
   thus, if the source address in the LOWPAN_IPHC is the node that
   inserted the IP-in-IP-6LoRH header then this situation alone does not
   mandate an IP-in-IP-6LoRH header.

   Note: A typical packet in RPL non-storing mode going down the RPL
   graph requires an IP-in-IP encapsulation of the RH3, whereas the RPI



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   is usually (and quite illegally) omitted, unless it is important to
   indicate the RPLInstanceID.  To match this structure, an optimized
   IP-in-IP 6LoRH header is defined in Section 7.

   As a result, a RPL packet may bear only an RPI-6LoRH header and no
   IP-in-IP-6LoRH header.  In that case, the source and destination of
   the packet are specified by the LOWPAN_IPHC.

   As with [RFC6553], the fields in the RPI include an 'O', an 'R', and
   an 'F' bit, an 8-bit RPLInstanceID (with some internal structure),
   and a 16-bit SenderRank.

   The remainder of this section defines the RPI-6LoRH header, which is
   a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header that is designed to transport the
   RPI in 6LoWPAN LLNs.

6.1.  Compressing the RPLInstanceID

   RPL Instances are discussed in [RFC6550], Section 5.  A number of
   simple use cases do not require more than one instance, and in such
   cases, the instance is expected to be the global Instance 0.  A
   global RPLInstanceID is encoded in a RPLInstanceID field as follows:

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|     ID      |  Global RPLInstanceID in 0..127
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 7: RPLInstanceID Field Format for Global Instances.

   For the particular case of the global Instance 0, the RPLInstanceID
   field is all zeros.  This specification allows to elide a
   RPLInstanceID field that is all zeros, and defines a I flag that,
   when set, signals that the field is elided.

6.2.  Compressing the SenderRank

   The SenderRank is the result of the DAGRank operation on the rank of
   the sender; here the DAGRank operation is defined in [RFC6550],
   Section 3.5.1, as:

      DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease)

   If MinHopRankIncrease is set to a multiple of 256, the least
   significant 8 bits of the SenderRank will be all zeroes; by eliding
   those, the SenderRank can be compressed into a single byte.  This
   idea is used in [RFC6550] by defining DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE




Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   as 256 and in [RFC6552] that defaults MinHopRankIncrease to
   DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE.

   This specification allows to encode the SenderRank as either one or
   two bytes, and defines a K flag that, when set, signals that a single
   byte is used.

6.3.  The Overall RPI-6LoRH encoding

   The RPI-6LoRH header provides a compressed form for the RPL RPI.
   Routers that need to forward a packet with a RPI-6LoRH header are
   expected to be RPL routers that support this specification.  If a
   non-RPL router receives a packet with a RPI-6LoRH header, there was a
   routing error and the packet should be dropped.  Thus the Type field
   MUST NOT be ignored.

   Since the I flag is not set, the TSE field does not need to be a
   length expressed in bytes.  In that case the field is fully reused
   for control bits that encode the O, R and F flags from the RPI, as
   well as the I and K flags that indicate the compression format.

   The Type for the RPI-6LoRH is 5.

   The RPI-6LoRH header is immediately followed by the RPLInstanceID
   field, unless that field is fully elided, and then the SenderRank,
   which is either compressed into one byte or fully in-lined as two
   bytes.  The I and K flags in the RPI-6LoRH header indicate whether
   the RPLInstanceID is elided and/or the SenderRank is compressed.
   Depending on these bits, the Length of the RPI-6LoRH may vary as
   described hereafter.

       0                   1                   2
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ...  -+-+-+
      |1|0|0|O|R|F|I|K| 6LoRH Type=5  |   Compressed fields  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ...  -+-+-+

                  Figure 8: The Generic RPI-6LoRH Format.

   O, R, and F bits:  The O, R, and F bits are defined in [RFC6550],
         section 11.2.

   I bit:  If it is set, the Instance ID is elided and the RPLInstanceID
         is the Global RPLInstanceID 0.  If it is not set, the octet
         immediately following the type field contains the RPLInstanceID
         as specified in [RFC6550], section 5.1.





Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   K bit:  If it is set, the SenderRank is compressed into one octet,
         with the least significant octet elided.  If it is not set, the
         SenderRank, is fully inlined as two octets.

   In Figure 9, the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0, and the
   MinHopRankIncrease is a multiple of 256 so the least significant byte
   is all zeros and can be elided:

       0                   1                   2
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1|0|0|O|R|F|1|1| 6LoRH Type=5  | SenderRank    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                I=1, K=1

                 Figure 9: The most compressed RPI-6LoRH.

   In Figure 10, the RPLInstanceID is the Global RPLInstanceID 0, but
   both bytes of the SenderRank are significant so it can not be
   compressed:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1|0|0|O|R|F|1|0| 6LoRH Type=5  |        SenderRank             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                I=1, K=0

                   Figure 10: Eliding the RPLInstanceID.

   In Figure 11, the RPLInstanceID is not the Global RPLInstanceID 0,
   and the MinHopRankIncrease is a multiple of 256:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1|0|0|O|R|F|0|1| 6LoRH Type=5  | RPLInstanceID |  SenderRank   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                I=0, K=1

                    Figure 11: Compressing SenderRank.

   In Figure 12, the RPLInstanceID is not the Global RPLInstanceID 0,
   and both bytes of the SenderRank are significant:







Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1|0|0|O|R|F|0|0| 6LoRH Type=5  | RPLInstanceID |    Sender-...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        ...-Rank      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                I=0, K=0

              Figure 12: Least compressed form of RPI-6LoRH.

7.  The IP-in-IP 6LoRH Header

   The IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IP-in-IP-6LoRH) header is an Elective 6LoWPAN
   Routing Header that provides a compressed form for the encapsulating
   IPv6 Header in the case of an IP-in-IP encapsulation.

   An IP-in-IP encapsulation is used to insert a field such as a Routing
   Header or an RPI at a router that is not the source of the packet.
   In order to send an error back regarding the inserted field, the
   address of the router that performs the insertion must be provided.

   The encapsulation can also enable the last router prior to
   Destination to remove a field such as the RPI, but this can be done
   in the compressed form by removing the RPI-6LoRH, so an IP-in-IP-
   6LoRH encapsulation is not required for that sole purpose.

   This field is not critical for routing so the Type can be ignored,
   and the TSE field contains the Length in bytes.

     0                   1                   2
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...      -+
    |1|0|1| Length  | 6LoRH Type 6  |  Hop Limit    | Encaps. Address  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       ...      -+


                      Figure 13: The IP-in-IP-6LoRH.

   The Length of an IP-in-IP-6LoRH header is expressed in bytes and MUST
   be at least 1, to indicate a Hop Limit (HL), that is decremented at
   each hop.  When the HL reaches 0, the packet is dropped per [RFC2460]

   If the Length of an IP-in-IP-6LoRH header is exactly 1, then the
   Encapsulator Address is elided, which means that the Encapsulator is
   a well-known router, for instance the root in a RPL graph.





Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   If the Length of an IP-in-IP-6LoRH header is greater than 1, then an
   Encapsulator Address is placed in a compressed form after the Hop
   Limit field.  The value of the Length indicates which compression is
   performed on the Encapsulator Address.  For instance, a Size of 3
   indicates that the Encapsulator Address is compressed to 2 bytes.

   When it cannot be elided, the destination IP address of the IP-in-IP
   header is transported in a RH3-6LoRH header as the first address of
   the list.

   With RPL, the destination address in the IP-in-IP header is
   implicitly the root in the RPL graph for packets going upwards, and
   the destination address in the IPHC for packets going downwards.  If
   the implicit value is correct, the destination IP address of the IP-
   in-IP encapsulation can be elided.

   If the final destination of the packet is a leaf that does not
   support this specification, then the chain of 6LoRH headers must be
   stripped by the RPL/6LR router to which the leaf is attached.  In
   that example, the destination IP address of the IP-in-IP header
   cannot be elided.

   In the special case where a 6LoRH header is used to route 6LoWPAN
   fragments, the destination address is not accessible in the IPHC on
   all fragments and can be elided only for the first fragment and for
   packets going upwards.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC4944], [RFC6282], and [RFC6553]
   apply.

   Using a compressed format as opposed to the full in-line format is
   logically equivalent and is believed to not create an opening for a
   new threat when compared to [RFC6550], [RFC6553] and [RFC6554].

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  Reserving Space in 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1

   This specification reserves Dispatch Value Bit Patterns within the
   6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1 as follows:

      101xxxxx: for Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Headers

      100xxxxx: for Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Headers.





Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


9.2.  Nex 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type Registry

   This document creates an IANA registry for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header
   Type, and assigns the following values:

      0..4: RH3-6LoRH [RFCthis]

      5: RPI-6LoRH [RFCthis]

      6: IP-in-IP-6LoRH [RFCthis]

10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank Tom Phinney, Thomas Watteyne, Tengfei
   Chang, Martin Turon, James Woodyatt, Samita Chakrabarti, Jonathan
   Hui, Gabriel Montenegro and Ralph Droms for constructive reviews to
   the design in the 6lo Working Group.  The overall discussion involved
   participants to the 6MAN, 6TiSCH and ROLL WGs, thank you all.
   Special thanks to the chairs of the ROLL WG, Michael Richardson and
   Ines Robles, and Brian Haberman, Internet Area A-D, and Adrian
   Farrel, Routing Area A-D, for driving this complex effort across
   Working Groups and Areas.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch]
              Thubert, P., "6LoWPAN Paging Dispatch", draft-ietf-6lo-
              paging-dispatch-01 (work in progress), January 2016.

   [IEEE802154]
              IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE std.
              802.15.4, Part. 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
              and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate
              Wireless Personal Area Networks", 2015.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.






Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.

   [RFC6282]  Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., 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, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6550, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.

   [RFC6552]  Thubert, P., Ed., "Objective Function Zero for the Routing
              Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC
              6552, DOI 10.17487/RFC6552, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6552>.

   [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, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.

   [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, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.

   [RFC7102]  Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC7228, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.

11.2.  Informative References







Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work
              in progress), November 2015.

   [I-D.robles-roll-useofrplinfo]
              Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "When to use
              RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6", draft-robles-roll-
              useofrplinfo-02 (work in progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments]
              Thubert, P. and J. Hui, "LLN Fragment Forwarding and
              Recovery", draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments-02 (work
              in progress), November 2014.

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
              Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
              Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC
              6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.

   [RFC7554]  Watteyne, T., Ed., Palattella, M., and L. Grieco, "Using
              IEEE 802.15.4e Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) in the
              Internet of Things (IoT): Problem Statement", RFC 7554,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7554, May 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7554>.

Appendix A.  Examples

   The example in Figure 14 illustrates the 6LoRH compression of a
   classical packet in Storing Mode in all directions, as well as in
   non-Storing mode for a packet going up the DODAG following the
   default route to the root.  In this particular example, a
   fragmentation process takes place per [RFC4944], and the fragment
   headers must be placed in Page 0 before switching to Page 1:

   +-  ...  -+-  ...  -+-+ ... -+-+ ... -+- ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
   |Frag type|Frag hdr |11110001|IP-in-IP|  RPI   | RFC 6282 Dispatch
   |RFC 4944 |RFC 4944 | Page 1 | 6LoRH  | 6LoRH  |   + LOWPAN_IPHC
   +-  ...  -+-  ...  -+-+ ... -+-+ ... -+- ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                                                   <-    RFC 6282     ->
                                                      No RPL artifact

              Figure 14: Example Compressed Packet with RPI.

   The example illustrated in Figure 15 is a classical packet in non-
   Storing mode for a packet going down the DODAG following a source
   routed path from the root; in this particular example, addresses in



Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   the DODAG are assigned to share a same /112 prefix, for instance
   taken from a /64 subnet with the first 6 octets of the suffix set to
   a constant such as all zeroes.  In that case, all addresses but the
   first can be compressed to 2 octets, which means that there will be 2
   RH3_6LoRH headers, one to store the first complete address and the
   one to store the sequence of addresses compressed to 2 octets (in
   this example, 3 of them):

   +- ...  -+- ...  -+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
   |11110001|IP-in-IP| RH3(128bits)| RH3(3*16bits)| RFC 6282 Dispatch
   |Page 1  | 6LoRH  | 6LoRH       | 6LoRH        |   + LOWPAN_IPHC
   +- ...  -+- ... +-+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                                                   <-    RFC 6282     ->
                                                      No RPL artifact

              Figure 15: Example Compressed Packet with RH3.

   Note: the RPI is not represented since most implementations actually
   refrain from placing it in a source routed packet though [RFC6550]
   generally expects it.

Authors' Addresses

   Pascal Thubert (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Building D - Regus
   45 Allee des Ormes
   BP1200
   MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis  06254
   FRANCE

   Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com


   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org








Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft6LoWPAN Routing Header And Paging Dispatches  January 2016


   Laurent Toutain
   Institut MINES TELECOM; TELECOM Bretagne
   2 rue de la Chataigneraie
   CS 17607
   Cesson-Sevigne Cedex  35576
   France

   Email: Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu


   Robert Cragie
   ARM Ltd.
   110 Fulbourn Road
   Cambridge  CB1 9NJ
   UK

   Email: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com


































Thubert, et al.           Expires July 18, 2016                [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/