[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo
ROLL Working Group M.I. Robles
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational M. Richardson
Expires: December 29, 2015 SSW
June 27, 2015
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo-00
Abstract
This document states 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.
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 December 29, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
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.
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Example flow from leaf to root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Example flow from leaf to Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Example flow from leaf to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Traditional storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Traditional non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. P2P non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Example flow from Internet to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Example flow from root to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] defines RPL Option to transmit routing information.
RFC 6553 [RFC6553] defines how to transmit in a Hop-By-Hop Option RPL
Information,such as information to avoid and detect loops. RFC 6554
[RFC6554] defines the use of Extension header for Source Routing.
Several discussions in ROLL/6lo/6tisch Mailing Lists took place
focusing in the definition how to compress RPL Information in
constrained environment. ROLL Virtual Interim Meeting (02-2015)
concluded that there is a need to define how to use RFC 6553, RFC6554
and tunneling (IP-in-IP) to be able to set the correct environment
for compression.
2. Terminology and Requirements Language
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
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].
Terminology defined in [RFC7102]
3. Sample/reference topology
In a typical topology we found 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), 6lR
(6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf connected in a DODAG
(Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph). Between these
entities messages such as DIS, DIO and DAO are transmitted. RPL
defines the RPL Control message as an ICMPv6 information message with
a Type of 155. RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: Storing,
it is fully stateful or Non-Storing it is fully source routed. Any
given RPL Instance is either storing or non-storing.
+--------------+
| Upper Layers |
| |
+--------------+
| RPL |
| |
+--------------+
| ICMPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN |
| |
+--------------+
| PHY-MAC |
| |
+--------------+
Figure 1: RPL Stack
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
+----+--+
|DODAG |
+---------+Root +----------+
| |6LBR | |
| +----+--+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+
|6LR | | | | |
+-----+ | | | | |
| | | | | | +------+
| +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+
|Leaf | | | | | | | | |
|6LN | | | | | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+
Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology
In different scenarios the use of RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and tunneling
can take place:
-Flow from leaf to root
-Flow from leaf to Internet
-Flow from leaf to leaf
-Flow from Internet to leaf
-Flow from leaf to root
4. Example flow from leaf to root
A leaf node generates DAO and DIS messages and in general does not
accept them. Additionally, this kind of nodes accepts DIO messages,
but in general do not generate them. (In inconsistency A leaf node
generates DIO with infinite rank, to fix it).
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
4.1. Non-storing
In non-storing in this case the leaf node uses Hop-By-Hop option (RFC
6553) to indicate the routing information to send messages to the
DODAG root, this message is going to be analyzed in each node until
arrive the DODAG root.
RFC 6554 was created to strictly send information between RPL routers
in the same RPL routing domain. How it would be in 6554?
TBD: Tunneling is necessary in case that there is information to send
outside RPL Domain and other cases?
+------+
| |
| 6LBR |
| |
+---+--+
|
| LoWPAN_HC
| Route= 6LN-6LR-6LBR
^ |
| +---+-+
| | |
| | 6LR |
| | |
| +--+--+
| | LoWPAN_HC
| | Route= 6LN-6LR-6LBR
| |
+ |
+--+--+
| 6LN |
| |
| |
+-----+
Figure 3: From leaf to Root - Non-Storing Mode
4.2. Storing
IP6 6553{X,Y] ?ipip payload. In storing mode is suitable the use of
RFC 6553 to send RPL Information through HBH field checking the
routing table to find out where to send the message. It may include
IP-in-IP encapsulation to transmit information not related with the
RPL domain.
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
+------+
| |
| 6LBR |
| |
+---+--+
|
| LoWPAN_HC
| 0x63|HBH Data
^ |
| +---+-+
| | |
| | 6LR | 6LR check in routing table
| | |
| +--+--+
| | LoWPAN_HC
| | 0x63|HBH Data
| |
+ |
+--+--+
| 6LN |
| |
| |
+-----+
Figure 4: From leaf to Root - Storing Mode
5. Example flow from leaf to Internet
5.1. Non-storing
In this case the IP-in-IP encapsulation should take place to send
information not related to the RPL domain inside of the RPL domain.
RPL information from RFC 6553 should not go out to Internet. The
router sould take this information out before send the packet to
Internet. The HBH Option is going to be analyzed in each node to the
root.
Related to RFC 6554 the Source Header route is added and removed by
DODAG root. However, RFC 6554 was created to strictly send
information between RPL routers in the same RPL routing domain. How
it would be in 6554?
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
5.2. Storing
In storing the information of RFC 6553 should take away by DODAG root
before go to Internet.
6. Example flow from leaf to leaf
can leafs insert appropriate headers, without ipip? In [RFC6550] RPL
allows a simple one-hop P2P optimization for both storing and non-
storing networks. A node may send a P2P packet destined to a one-hop
neighbor direclty to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550].
6.1. Traditional storing
The route go through an ancestor that knows the route to the
destination, using HBH [RFC6553] to carry RPL Information.
6.2. Traditional non-storing
The route go through the DODAG root, using source routing [RFC6554].
6.3. P2P non-storing
(p2p storing? TBD)
7. Example flow from Internet to leaf
A DODAG root do not add routing extension to incoming packets, it
instead uses tunneling.
7.1. Storing
DODAG root adds the HBH header [RFC6553] and send the packet downward
to the destination.
7.2. Non-storing
DODAG root is going to add the source route header [RFC6554]
8. Example flow from root to leaf
8.1. Storing
DODAG root adds the HBH header [RFC6553] and send the packet downward
to the destination.
8.2. Non-storing
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
DODAG root is going to add the source route header [RFC6554]
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
10. Security Considerations
TBD.
11. Acknowledgements
This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training
Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728)
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, March
2012.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, March
2012.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2015
Maria Ines Robles
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com
Michael C. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
470 Dawson Avenue
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7
CA
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/
Robles & Richardson Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 9]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/