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

Versions: (draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. Thubert
Expires: March 30, 2019                                            Cisco
                                                                R. Sahoo
                                                                  Z. Cao
                                                                  Huawei
                                                      September 26, 2018


                      Efficient Route Invalidation
                   draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-06

Abstract

   This document describes the problems associated with the use of NPDAO
   messaging in RPL and 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 March 30, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Why NPDAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Problems with current         NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . .   5
     2.2.  Invalidate routes to dependent nodes  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Possible route downtime caused by async operation of
           NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Req#1: Tolerant to link failures to the previous
           parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent
           switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic    6
   4.  Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Change in RPL route invalidation semantics  . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Transit Information Option changes  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  Secure DCO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.2.  DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.3.  Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.4.  Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK)    9
       4.3.5.  Secure DCO-ACK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.1.  Dependent Nodes invalidation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.2.  NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Example DCO Messaging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
   scheme.  RPL has an optional messaging in the form of DAO messages
   using which the 6LBR can learn route towards the nodes.  In storing
   mode, DAO messages would result in routing entries been created on




Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


   all intermediate hops from the node's parent all the way towards the
   6LBR.

   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 NPDAO is a DAO message with route
   lifetime of zero, originates at the target node and always flows
   upstream towards the 6LBR.  This document explains the problems
   associated with the current use of NPDAO messaging and also discusses
   the requirements for an optimized route invalidation messaging
   scheme.  Further a new pro-active route invalidation message called
   as "Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)" is specified which fulfills
   requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging.

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: Destination Cleanup Object, A new RPL control message type
   defined by this draft.

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

   LLN: Low Power and Lossy Networks.

   Target Node: The node switching its parent whose routing adjacencies
   are updated (created/removed).

   This document also uses terminology described in [RFC6550].

1.2.  Current NPDAO messaging

   RPL uses NPDAO messaging in the storing mode so that the node
   changing it routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route.
   This is needed so that nodes along previous path can release any
   resources (such as the routing entry) it maintains on behalf of
   target node.



Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


   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), RPL allows sending NPDAO to (B) and regular DAO to (C).

1.3.  Why NPDAO is important?

   Nodes in LLNs may be resource constrained.  There is limited memory
   available and routing entry records are 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.  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 stale route entries.






Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


2.  Problems with current NPDAO messaging

2.1.  Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent

   When a node switches its parent, the NPDAO is to be sent to its
   previous parent and a regular DAO to 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.

2.2.  Invalidate routes to dependent nodes

   RPL does not specify how route invalidation will work for dependent
   nodes rooted at switching node, resulting in stale routing entries of
   the dependent nodes.  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.  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.  Possible route downtime caused by async 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 impacting downward traffic for the switching node.

   In the example topology, consider Node (D) switches from parent (B)
   to (C).  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.

3.  Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization

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

   When the switching node sends the NPDAO 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 NPDAO message must be
   tolerant to the link failure.  The link referred here represents the
   link between the node and its previous parent (from whom the node is
   now disassociating).






Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


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

   It should be possible to do route invalidation for dependent nodes
   rooted at the switching node.

3.3.  Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic

   While sending the NPDAO and DAO messages, it is possible that the
   NPDAO successfully invalidates the previous path, while the newly
   sent DAO gets lost (new path not set up successfully).  This will
   result in downstream unreachability to the node switching paths.
   Therefore, it is desirable that the route invalidation is
   synchronized with the DAO to avoid the risk of route downtime.

4.  Proposed changes to RPL signaling

4.1.  Change in RPL route invalidation 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 adds
   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 common ancestor node generates a
   DCO in response to the change in the next-hop on receiving a regular
   DAO for the target.

   In 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.








Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


4.2.  Transit Information Option 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 Transit Information option to contain
   "Invalidate previous route" (I) bit.  This I-bit signals the common
   ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of the target node.  The
   I-bit is carried in the transit information 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.

   The common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO message in response to
   this I-bit when it sees that the routing adjacencies have changed for
   the target.  I-bit governs the ownership of the DCO message in a way
   that the target node is still in control of its own route
   invalidation.








Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


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.

     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 future use.  These bits 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'



Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


   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 DCO Base
   are reserved.  They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on reception.

4.3.1.  Secure DCO

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

4.3.2.  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.

4.3.3.  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 MUST use the same Path Sequence number present in
   the regular DAO message when the DCO is generated in response to DAO
   message.

4.3.4.  Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK)

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












Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


     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.

   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 DCO-Ack
   Base are reserved.  They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST
   be ignored on reception.

4.3.5.  Secure DCO-ACK

   A Secure DCO-ACK message follows the format in [RFC6550] figure 7,
   where the base message format is the DCO-ACK message shown in
   Figure 4.





Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


4.4.  Other considerations

4.4.1.  Dependent Nodes invalidation

   Current RPL [RFC6550] does not provide a mechanism for route
   invalidation for dependent nodes.  This document allows the dependent
   nodes invalidation.  Dependent nodes will generate their respective
   DAOs to update their paths, and the previous route invalidation for
   those nodes should work in the similar manner described for switching
   node.  The dependent node may set the I-bit in the transit
   information option as part of regular DAO so as to request
   invalidation of previous route from the common ancestor node.

4.4.2.  NPDAO and DCO in the same network

   Even with the changed semantics, the current NPDAO mechanism in
   [RFC6550] can still be used.  There are certain scenarios where
   current NPDAO signalling may still be used, for example, when the
   route lifetime expiry of the target happens or when the node simply
   decides to gracefully terminate the RPL session on graceful node
   shutdown.  Moreover a deployment can have a mix of nodes supporting
   the proposed DCO and the existing NPDAO mechanism.

5.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Cenk Gundogan, Simon Duquennoy, Georgios
   Papadopoulous, Peter Van Der Stok 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   |
   +------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
   | 0x04 |          Destination Cleanup Object         |     This     |
   |      |                                             |   document   |
   | 0x05 |  Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement |     This     |
   |      |                                             |   document   |
   | 0x84 |      Secure Destination Cleanup Object      |     This     |
   |      |                                             |   document   |
   | 0x85 |      Secure Destination Cleanup Object      |     This     |
   |      |               Acknowledgement               |   document   |
   +------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+






Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


   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

   This document handles security considerations inline to base RPL.
   Secure versions of DCO and DCO-ACK are added similar to other RPL
   messages.  For general RPL security considerations, see [RFC6550].

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative 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-14 (work
              in progress), April 2018.

Appendix A.  Example DCO 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




Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


       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.
   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.

Authors' Addresses

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

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


   Pascal Thubert
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis  06254
   France

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com









Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation        September 2018


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

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


   Zhen Cao
   Huawei
   W Chang'an Ave
   Beijing
   China

   Email: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com


































Jadhav, et al.           Expires March 30, 2019                [Page 14]


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