draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-01.txt   draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-02.txt 
ROLL Working Group M. Robles ROLL Working Group M. Robles
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational M. Richardson Intended status: Informational M. Richardson
Expires: August 29, 2016 SSW Expires: September 22, 2016 SSW
P. Thubert P. Thubert
Cisco Cisco
February 26, 2016 March 21, 2016
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-01 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-02
Abstract Abstract
This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and
IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help
defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN
environments. environments.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 August 29, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 41 skipping to change at page 2, line 41
6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 21 6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 21
6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 21 6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 21
6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22 6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22
6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 23 6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 23
6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 24 6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 24
6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 25 6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 25
6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 26 6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 26
6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 27 6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 27
6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Future RPL work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC RPL [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC
6553 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop- 6553 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop-
by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing
topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route Header", topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route Header",
an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing
domain. domain.
skipping to change at page 13, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 35
5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf 5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
6LBR get the packet from Internet and add a RPI header encapsulated 6LBR get the packet from Internet and add a RPI header encapsulated
in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to 6LR and send the packet down. in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to 6LR and send the packet down.
The flow label is set to zero on inner IP. The last 6LR removes the The flow label is set to zero on inner IP. The last 6LR removes the
RPI header. The IPv6 node might set the flow label since may arrive RPI header. The IPv6 node might set the flow label since may arrive
with zero value. The 6LBR does not know that the is attached to the with zero value. The RPI should be in IP-in-IP header.
last 6LR. The non-RPL-aware-leaf drops packet, because RPI has
unknown header 0x63, and 0x63 has "01" = discard packet. If RPI had
0x23, it would "skip".
+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+ +----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 | | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
| | t | | | | | | t | | | |
+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+ +----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
| Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | | Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 18, line 38 skipping to change at page 18, line 38
| rs | | | | | | | rs | | | | | |
+-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
RPL-aware-leaf RPL-aware-leaf
5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)--> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-
6LN RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)
The problem to solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when The problem to solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when
get into LLN. Should attributes be added to the border router get into LLN. One approach is that the 6LBR should know in which 6LR
indicating this? the IPv6 node is attached. The RPI information is encapsulated in a
IPv6-in-IPv6 header, each IPv6-in-IPv6 header needs to be added/
removed at each hop..
+---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+ +---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR | 6LR | 6LR | IPv6 | | Header | IPv | 6LR | 6LR | 6LR | IPv6 |
| | 6 | | (common | | dst | | | 6 | | (common | | dst |
| | src | | parent) | | | | | src | | parent) | | |
+---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+ +---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+
| Inserte | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- | | Inserte | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | IPv6(RPI) | | | | | d | | IPv6(RPI) | | | |
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- |
| headers | | | | IPv6(RPI) | | | headers | | | | IPv6(RPI) | |
skipping to change at page 28, line 26 skipping to change at page 28, line 26
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
+--------------+------+-----------+-----------+--------------+------+ +--------------+------+-----------+-----------+--------------+------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
not-RPL-aware-leaf not-RPL-aware-leaf
7. Future RPL work 7. Problem statement
There are cases from above that are not clear how to send the There are cases from above that are not clear how to send the
information. It requires furhter analysis on how to proceed to send information. It requires furhter analysis on how to proceed to send
the information from source to destination. the information from source to destination.
From the above cases, we have in storing mode: From the above cases, we have in storing mode:
- Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf: Somehow, the sender - Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf: Somehow, the sender
has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware, and needs to know has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware, and needs to know
6LR, and not even the root knows where the 6LR is located. 6LR, and not even the root knows where the 6LR is located.
- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf: The problem to - Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf: The problem to
solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when get into LLN. solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when get into LLN.
One approach is the 6LBR should be aware in which 6LR is the IPv6
node attached.
8. IANA Considerations As was mentioned above in the document, a possible solution could be
adapted to all cases: An IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be used on a hop-by-
hop basis, using either link-local addresses, or even IPv6 Global
Unicast Addresses, but each IPv6-in-IPv6 header needs to be added/
removed at each hop.
8. 6LoRH Compression cases
The [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method for
RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6.
The uses cases mentioned in this draft MUST use 6LoRH. Examples of
the use of 6LoRH are found in Apendix A of
[I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch].
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document. There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
9. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
TODO. The security considerations covering of [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] apply
when the packets get into RPL Domain.
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training
Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728). Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728).
The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and
comments of Thomas Watteyne, Xavier Vilajosana and Robert Cragie. comments of Thomas Watteyne, Xavier Vilajosana, Robert Cragie and
Simon Duquennoy.
To be completed with additional Acknowledgments.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://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,
skipping to change at page 29, line 43 skipping to change at page 30, line 11
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch]
Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-6lo-routing- "6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-6lo-routing-
dispatch-05 (work in progress), February 2016. dispatch-05 (work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work
in progress), November 2015. in progress), November 2015.
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
30 lines changed or deleted 48 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/