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

Versions: (draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao) 00 01

ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Sahoo
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Z. Cao
Expires: April 20, 2018                                      Huawei Tech
                                                        October 17, 2017


                       No-Path DAO modifications
                   draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-01

Abstract

   This document describes the problems associated with the use of No-
   Path DAO messaging in RPL and a signaling changes to improve route
   invalidation efficiency.

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 https://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 April 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  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.




Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Current No-Path DAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Cases when No-Path DAO may be used  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Why No-Path DAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Problems with current  No-Path DAO messaging  . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Lost NP-DAO due to link break to the previous parent  . .   5
     2.2.  Invalidate routes to dependent nodes of the switching
           node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Route downtime caused by asynchronous operation of
           NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Requirements for the No-Path DAO Optimization . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Req#1: Tolerant to the link failures to the previous
           parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent
           switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Req#3: No impact on traffic while NP-DAO operation in
           progress  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Change in NPDAO semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  DAO message format changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.3.  Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK)   10
     4.4.  Example messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.5.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.5.1.  Dependent Nodes invalidation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
   scheme.  The specification has an optional messaging in the form of
   DAO messages using which the 6LBR can learn route towards any of the
   nodes.  In storing mode, DAO messages would result in routing entries
   been created on all intermediate hops from the node's parent all the
   way towards the 6LBR.




Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   RPL allows use of No-Path DAO (NPDAO) messaging to invalidate a
   routing path corresponding to the given target, thus releasing
   resources utilized on that path.  A No-Path DAO is a DAO message with
   route lifetime of zero, originates at the target node and always
   flows upstream towards the 6LBR, signaling route invalidation for the
   given target.  This document explains the problems associated with
   the current use of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the
   requirements for an optimized No-Path DAO messaging scheme.  Further
   a new pro-active route invalidation message called as "Destination
   Cleanup Object (DCO)" is specified which fulfills all mentioned
   requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging.

   6TiSCH architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] leverages RPL and
   specifies use of non-storing and storing MOP for its routing
   operation.  Thus an improvement in route invalidation will help
   optimize 6TiSCH based networks.

1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   The document only caters to the RPL's storing mode of operation
   (MOP).  The non-storing MOP does not require use of NPDAO for route
   invalidation since routing entries are not maintained on 6LRs.

   Common Ancestor node: 6LR node which is the first common node on the
   old and new path for the child node.

   NPDAO: No-Path DAO.  A DAO message which has target with lifetime 0.

   DCO: A new RPL control message type defined by this specification and
   stands for Destination Cleanup Object.

   Regular DAO: A DAO message with non-zero lifetime.

   This document also uses terminology described in [RFC6550].

1.2.  Current No-Path DAO messaging

   RPL introduced No-Path DAO messaging in the storing mode so that the
   node switching its current parent can inform its parents and
   ancestors to invalidate the existing route.  Subsequently parents or
   ancestors would release any resources (such as the routing entry) it
   maintains on behalf of target node.  The NPDAO message always
   traverses the RPL tree in upward direction, originating at the target
   node itself.



Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   For the rest of this document consider the following topology:

                                   (6LBR)
                                      |
                                      |
                                      |
                                     (A)
                                     / \
                                    /   \
                                   /     \
                                 (G)     (H)
                                  |       |
                                  |       |
                                  |       |
                                 (B)     (C)
                                   \      ;
                                    \    ;
                                     \  ;
                                      (D)
                                      / \
                                     /   \
                                    /     \
                                  (E)     (F)

                         Figure 1: Sample topology

   Node (D) is connected via preferred parent (B).  (D) has an alternate
   path via (C) towards the BR.  Node (A) is the common ancestor for (D)
   for paths through (B)-(G) and (C)-(H).  When (D) switches from (B) to
   (C), [RFC6550] suggests sending No-Path DAO to (B) and regular DAO to
   (C).

1.3.  Cases when No-Path DAO may be used

   There are following cases in which a node switches its parent and may
   employ No-Path DAO messaging:

   Case I: Current parent becomes unavailable because of transient or
   permanent link or parent node failure.

   Case II: The node finds a better parent node i.e. the metrics of
   another parent is better than its current parent.

   Case III: The node switches to a new parent whom it "thinks" has a
   better metric but does not in reality.

   The usual steps of operation when the node switches the parent is
   that the node sends a No-Path DAO message via its current parent to



Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   invalidate its current route and subsequently it tries to establish a
   new routing path by sending a new DAO via its new parent.

1.4.  Why No-Path DAO is important?

   Nodes in LLNs may be resource constrained.  There is limited memory
   available and routing entry records are the one of the primary
   elements occupying dynamic memory in the nodes.  Route invalidation
   helps 6LR nodes to decide which entries could be discarded to better
   achieve resource utilization in case of contention.  Thus it becomes
   necessary to have efficient route invalidation mechanism.  Also note
   that a single parent switch may result in a "sub-tree" switching from
   one parent to another.  Thus the route invalidation needs to be done
   on behalf of the sub-tree and not the switching node alone.  In the
   above example, when Node (D) switches parent, the route invalidation
   needs to be done for (D), (E) and (F).  Thus without efficient route
   invalidation, a 6LR may have to hold a lot of unwanted route entries.

2.  Problems with current No-Path DAO messaging

2.1.  Lost NP-DAO due to link break to the previous parent

   When a node switches its parent, the NPDAO is to be sent via its
   previous parent and a regular DAO via its new parent.  In cases where
   the node switches its parent because of transient or permanent parent
   link/node failure then the NPDAO message is bound to fail.  RPL
   assumes communication link with the previous parent for No-Path DAO
   messaging.

   RPL allows use of route lifetime to remove unwanted routes in case
   the routes could not be refreshed.  But route lifetimes in case of
   LLNs could be substantially high and thus the route entries would be
   stuck for long.

2.2.  Invalidate routes to dependent nodes of the switching node

   No-path DAO is sent by the node who has switched the parent but it
   does not work for the dependent child nodes below it.  The
   specification does not specify how route invalidation will work for
   sub-childs, resulting in stale routing entries on behalf of the sub-
   childs on the previous route.  The only way for 6LR to invalidate the
   route entries for dependent nodes would be to use route lifetime
   expiry which could be substantially high for LLNs.

   In the example topology, when Node (D) switches its parent, Node (D)
   generates an NPDAO on its behalf.  Post switching, Node (D) transmits
   a DIO with incremented DTSN so that child nodes, node (E) and (F),
   generate DAOs to trigger route update on the new path for themselves.



Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   There is no NPDAO generated by these child nodes through the previous
   path resulting in stale entries on nodes (B) and (G) for nodes (E)
   and (F).

2.3.  Route downtime caused by asynchronous operation of NPDAO and DAO

   A switching node may generate both an NPDAO and DAO via two different
   paths at almost the same time.  There is a possibility that an NPDAO
   generated may invalidate the previous route and the regular DAO sent
   via the new path gets lost on the way.  This may result in route
   downtime thus impacting downward traffic for the switching node.  In
   the example topology, consider Node (D) switches from parent (B) to
   (C) because the metrics of the path via (C) are better.  Note that
   the previous path via (B) may still be available (albeit at
   relatively bad metrics).  An NPDAO sent from previous route may
   invalidate the existing route whereas there is no way to determine
   whether the new DAO has successfully updated the route entries on the
   new path.

   An implementation technique to avoid this problem is to further delay
   the route invalidation by a fixed time interval after receiving an
   NPDAO, considering the time taken for the new path to be established.
   Coming up with such a time interval is tricky since the new route may
   also not be available and it may subsequently require more parent
   switches to establish a new path.

3.  Requirements for the No-Path DAO Optimization

3.1.  Req#1: Tolerant to the link failures to the previous parents

   When the switching node send the NP-DAO message to the previous
   parent, it is normal that the link to the previous parent is prone to
   failure.  Therefore, it is required that the NP-DAO message MUST be
   tolerant to the link failure during the switching.

3.2.  Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent switching

   While switching the parent node and sending NP-DAO message, it is
   required that the routing entries to the dependent nodes of the
   switching node will be updated accordingly on the previous parents
   and other relevant upstream nodes.

3.3.  Req#3: No impact on traffic while NP-DAO operation in progress

   While sending the NP-DAO and DAO messages, it is possible that the
   NP-DAO successfully invalidates the previous path, while the newly
   sent DAO gets lost (new path not set up successfully).  This will
   result into downstream unreachability to the current switching node.



Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   Therefore, it is desirable that the NP-DAO is synchronized with the
   DAO to avoid the risk of route downtime.

4.  Proposed changes to RPL signaling

4.1.  Change in NPDAO semantics

   As described in Section 1.2, the NPDAO originates at the node
   switching the parent and traverses upstream towards the root.  In
   order to solve the problems as mentioned in Section 2, the draft
   proposes to add new pro-active route invalidation message called as
   "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO) that originates at a common
   ancestor node between the new and old path.  The trigger for the
   common ancestor node to generate this DCO is the change in the next
   hop for the target on reception of an update message in the form of
   regular DAO for the target.

   In the Figure 1, when node D decides to switch the path from B to C,
   it sends a regular DAO to node C with reachability information
   containing target as address of D and a incremented path sequence
   number.  Node C will update the routing table based on the
   reachability information in DAO and in turn generate another DAO with
   the same reachability information and forward it to H.  Node H also
   follows the same procedure as Node C and forwards it to node A.  When
   node A receives the regular DAO, it finds that it already has a
   routing table entry on behalf of the target address of node D.  It
   finds however that the next hop information for reaching node D has
   changed i.e. the node D has decided to change the paths.  In this
   case, Node A which is the common ancestor node for node D along the
   two paths (previous and new), may generate a DCO which traverses
   downwards in the network.  The document in the subsequent section
   will explain the message format changes to handle this downward flow
   of NPDAO.

4.2.  DAO message format changes

   Every RPL message is divided into base message fields and additional
   Options.  The base fields apply to the message as a whole and options
   are appended to add message/use-case specific attributes.  As an
   example, a DAO message may be attributed by one or more "RPL Target"
   options which specifies the reachability information for the given
   targets.  Similarly, a Transit Information option may be associated
   with a set of RPL Target options.

   The draft proposes a change in DAO message to contain "Invalidate
   previous route" (I) bit.  This I-bit which is carried in regular DAO
   message, signals the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf
   of the target node.  The I-bit is carried in the transit container



Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   option which augments the reachability information for a given set of
   RPL Target(s).

      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 = 0x06 | Option Length |E|I|  Flags    | Path Control  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Path Sequence | Path Lifetime |                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +                        Parent Address*                        +
     |                                                               |
     +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 2: Updated Transit Information Option (New I flag added)

   I (Invalidate previous route) bit: 1 bit flag.  The 'I' flag is set
   by the target node to indicate that it wishes to invalidate the
   previous route by a common ancestor node between the two paths.

4.3.  Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)

   A new ICMPv6 RPL control message type is defined by this
   specification called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO), which is
   used for proactive cleanup of state and routing information held on
   behalf of the target node by 6LRs.  The DCO message always traverses
   downstream and cleans up route information and other state
   information associated with the given target.


















Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


      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 |K|D|   Flags   |   Reserved    | DCOSequence   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +                            DODAGID(optional)                  +
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Option(s)...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 3: DCO base object

   RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
   associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.

   K: The 'K' flag indicates that the recipient is expected to send a
   DCO-ACK back.

   D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present.  This
   flag MUST be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.

   Flags: The 6 bits remaining unused in the Flags field are reserved
   for flags.  The field MUST be initialized to zero by the sender and
   MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Reserved: 8-bit unused field.  The field MUST be initialized to zero
   by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message from a node and
   echoed in the DCO-ACK message.

   DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that
   uniquely identifies a DODAG.  This field is only present when the 'D'
   flag is set.  This field is typically only present when a local
   RPLInstanceID is in use, in order to identify the DODAGID that is
   associated with the RPLInstanceID.  When a global RPLInstanceID is in
   use, this field need not be present.  Unassigned bits of the DAO Base
   are reserved.  They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on reception.






Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


4.3.1.  DCO Options

   The DCO message MAY carry valid options.  This specification allows
   for the DCO message to carry the following options:

      0x00 Pad1
      0x01 PadN
      0x05 RPL Target
      0x06 Transit Information
      0x09 RPL Target Descriptor

   The DCO carries a Target option and an associated Transit Information
   option with a lifetime of 0x00000000 to indicate a loss of
   reachability to that Target.

4.3.2.  Path Sequence number in the DCO

   A DCO message may contain a Path Sequence in the transit information
   option to identify the freshness of the DCO message.  The Path
   Sequence in the DCO and should use the same Path Sequence number
   present in the regular DAO message when the DCO is generated in
   response to DAO message.

4.3.3.  Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK)

   The DCO-ACK message is sent as a unicast packet by a DCO recipient in
   response to a unicast DCO message.

     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 |D|  Reserved   |  DCOSequence  |    Status     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +                            DODAGID(optional)                  +
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 4: DCO-ACK base object

   RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
   associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.





Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present.  This
   flag MUST be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.

   Reserved: 7-bit unused field.  The field MUST be initialized to zero
   by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message from a node and
   echoed in the DCO-ACK message.

   Status: Indicates the completion.  Status 0 is defined as unqualified
   acceptance in this specification.  The remaining status values are
   reserved as rejection codes.

   DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that
   uniquely identifies a DODAG.  This field is only present when the 'D'
   flag is set.  This field is typically only present when a local
   RPLInstanceID is in use, in order to identify the DODAGID that is
   associated with the RPLInstanceID.  When a global RPLInstanceID is in
   use, this field need not be present.  Unassigned bits of the DAO Base
   are reserved.  They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on reception.

4.4.  Example messaging

   In Figure 1, node (D) switches its parent from (B) to (C).  The
   sequence of actions is as follows:

   1.  Node D switches its parent from node B to node C
   2.  D sends a regular DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1) in the updated
       path to C
   3.  C checks for routing entry on behalf of D, since it cannot find
       an entry on behalf of D it creates a new routing entry and
       forwards the reachability information of the target D to H in a
       DAO.
   4.  Similar to C, node H checks for routing entry on behalf of D,
       cannot find an entry and hence creates a new routing entry and
       forwards the reachability information of the target D to H in a
       DAO.
   5.  Node A receives the DAO, and checks for routing entry on behalf
       of D.  It finds a routing entry but checks that the next hop for
       target D is now changed.  Node A checks the I_flag and generates
       DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=pathseq(DAO)) to previous next hop for target D
       which is G.  Subsequently, A updates the routing entry and
       forwards the reachability information of target D upstream
       DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=x) (the I_flag carries no
       significance henceforth).
   6.  Node G receives the DCO and invalidates routing entry of target D
       and forwards the (un)reachability information downstream to B.



Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


   7.  Similarly, B processes the DCO by invalidating the routing entry
       of target D and forwards the (un)reachability information
       downstream to D.
   8.  D ignores the DCO since the target is itself.
   9.  The propagation of the DCO will stop at any node where the node
       does not have an routing information associated with the target.
       If the routing information is present and the pathseq associated
       is not older, then still the DCO is dropped.

4.5.  Other considerations

4.5.1.  Dependent Nodes invalidation

   Current RPL [RFC6550] does not provide a mechanism for route
   invalidation for dependent nodes.

   This section describes approaches for invalidating routes of
   dependent nodes if the implementation chooses to solve this problem.
   The common ancestor node realizes that the paths for dependent nodes
   have changed (based on next hop change) when it receives a regular
   DAO on behalf of the dependent nodes.  Thus dependent nodes route
   invalidation can be handled in the same way as the switching node.
   Note that there is no way that dependent nodes can set the I_flag in
   the DAO message selectively since they are unaware that their parent/
   grand parent node is switching paths.  There are two ways to handle
   dependent node route invalidation:

   1.  One way to resolve is that the common ancestor does not depend
       upon the I_flag to generate the reverse NPDAO.  The only factor
       it makes the decision will be based on next_hop change for an
       existing target to generate the NPDAO.  Thus when the switching
       nodes and all the below dependent nodes advertise a regular DAO,
       the common ancestor node will detect a change in next hop and
       generate NPDAO for the same target as in the regular DAO.
   2.  Another way is that the nodes always set the I_flag whenever they
       send regular DAO.  Thus common ancestor will first check whether
       I_flag is set and then check whether the next_hop has changed and
       subsequently trigger DCO if required.

   This document recommends the approach in point 2.  The advantage with
   I_flag is that the generation of downstream NPDAO is still controlled
   by the target node and thus is still in control of its own routing
   state.








Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


5.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Cenk Gundogan, Simon Duquennoy and Pascal
   Thubert for their review and comments.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate new ICMPv6 RPL control codes in RPL
   [RFC6550] for DCO and DCO-ACK messages.

   +------+--------------------------------------------+---------------+
   | Code |                Description                 |   Reference   |
   +------+--------------------------------------------+---------------+
   | 0x85 |         Destination Cleanup Object         | This document |
   | 0x86 | Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement | This document |
   +------+--------------------------------------------+---------------+

   IANA is requested to allocate bit 18 in the Transit Information
   Option defined in RPL [RFC6550] section 6.7.8 for Invalidate route
   'I' flag.

7.  Security Considerations

   The secure versions of DCO and DCO-ACK also have to be considered in
   the future.  The seucrity considerations applicable to DAO, DAO-ACK
   messaging in RPL is also applicable here.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-12 (work
              in progress), August 2017.

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

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.




Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          No-Path DAO modifications           October 2017


8.2.  Informative References

   [CONTIKI]  Thingsquare, "Contiki: The Open Source OS for IoT", 2012,
              <http://www.contiki-os.org>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

Appendix A.  Additional Stuff

   This becomes an Appendix.

Authors' Addresses

   Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
   Huawei Tech
   Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   Phone: +91-080-49160700
   Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com


   Rabi Narayan Sahoo
   Huawei Tech
   Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   Phone: +91-080-49160700
   Email: rabinarayans@huawei.com


   Zhen Cao
   Huawei Tech
   W Chang'an Ave
   Beijing  560037
   China

   Email: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com








Jadhav, et al.           Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/