draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-08.txt   draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09.txt 
ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed. ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: April 3, 2019 Cisco Expires: April 17, 2019 Cisco
R. Sahoo R. Sahoo
Z. Cao Z. Cao
Huawei Huawei
September 30, 2018 October 14, 2018
Efficient Route Invalidation Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-08 draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging
used in RPL for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve used in RPL for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve
route invalidation efficiency. route invalidation efficiency.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Why NPDAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Why NPDAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Problems with current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . 6 2. Problems with current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . . 6 2.1. Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . . 5
2.2. Invalidate routes of dependent nodes . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Invalidate routes of dependent nodes . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Possible route downtime caused by async operation of 2.3. Possible route downtime caused by async operation of
NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Req#1: Remove messaging dependency on link to the 3.1. Req#1: Remove messaging dependency on link to the
previous parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 previous parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent 3.2. Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent
switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic 7 3.3. Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic 6
4. Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Change in RPL route invalidation semantics . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Change in RPL route invalidation semantics . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Transit Information Option changes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Transit Information Option changes . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Secure DCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.1. Secure DCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2. DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.2. DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.3. Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK) 10 4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK) 10
4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1. Dependent Nodes invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4.1. Dependent Nodes invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2. NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4.2. NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.3. DCO with multiple preferred parents . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4.3. DCO with multiple preferred parents . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Example Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Example Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Example DCO Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Example DCO Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Example DCO Messaging with multiple preferred parents . . 15 A.2. Example DCO Messaging with multiple preferred parents . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks) RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks)
specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing scheme. RPL has specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing scheme. RPL has
an optional messaging in the form of DAO (Destination Advertisement an optional messaging in the form of DAO (Destination Advertisement
skipping to change at page 14, line 8 skipping to change at page 14, line 8
1. Unsecured: In this mode, it is expected that the RPL control 1. Unsecured: In this mode, it is expected that the RPL control
messages are secured by other security mechanisms, such as link- messages are secured by other security mechanisms, such as link-
layer security. In this mode, the RPL control messages, layer security. In this mode, the RPL control messages,
including DCO, DCO-ACK, do not have Security sections. including DCO, DCO-ACK, do not have Security sections.
2. Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus 2. Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus
secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode. secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.
3. Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus 3. Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus
secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode. secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.
8. References 8. Normative References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. <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 Messaging Appendix A. Example Messaging
A.1. Example DCO Messaging A.1. Example DCO Messaging
In Figure 1, node (D) switches its parent from (B) to (C). The In Figure 1, node (D) switches its parent from (B) to (C). The
sequence of actions is as follows: sequence of actions is as follows:
1. Node D switches its parent from node B to node C 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 2. D sends a regular DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1) in the updated
path to C path to C
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/