draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17.txt   draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18.txt 
ROLL Working Group M. Robles ROLL Working Group M. Robles
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 6553, 6550, 8138 (if approved) M. Richardson Updates: 6553, 6550, 8138 (if approved) M. Richardson
Intended status: Standards Track SSW Intended status: Standards Track SSW
Expires: April 30, 2018 P. Thubert Expires: May 2, 2018 P. Thubert
Cisco Cisco
October 27, 2017 October 29, 2017
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-17 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-18
Abstract Abstract
This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document
enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which
to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this
document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 30, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
4. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . . . 13 6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . . . 13
6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . 14 6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . 14
6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . 15 6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . 15
6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . 15 6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . 15
6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . 16 6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . 16
6.2. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . . . 17 6.2. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . . . 17
6.2.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . 17 6.2.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . 17
6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . 18 6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . 17
6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.4. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware- 6.2.4. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Leaf . . . . . 21 6.3. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Leaf . . . . . 20
6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware- 6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL- 6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-
aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not- 6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-
RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . 27 7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . 25
7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . 28 7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . 26
7.1.2. on-SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . 28 7.1.2. on-SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . 26
7.1.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware- 7.1.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 7.1.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . 31 7.2. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . 29
7.2.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to 7.2.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware- 7.2.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.2.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 7.2.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL- 7.2.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-
aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.3. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leafs . . . . . . . 35 7.3. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leafs . . . . . . . 33
7.3.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 7.3.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.3.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not- 7.3.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-
RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 7.3.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 7.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Observations about the cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8. Observations about the cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.1. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.1. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.2. Non-Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8.2. Non-Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 9. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
[RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553 [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553
[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6
Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the
routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route
Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a
RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode. RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode.
skipping to change at page 4, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 16
interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above
artifacts as possible that not all implementors agree when artifacts artifacts as possible that not all implementors agree when artifacts
are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed. are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed.
An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover
if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that
discussion. This document clarifies what is the correct and the discussion. This document clarifies what is the correct and the
incorrect behaviour. incorrect behaviour.
The related document A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH) The related document A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH)
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] defines a method to compress RPL [RFC8138] defines a method to compress RPL Option information and
Option information and Routing Header type 3 [RFC6554], an efficient Routing Header type 3 [RFC6554], an efficient IP-in-IP technique, and
IP-in-IP technique, and use cases proposed for the use cases proposed for the [Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH.
[Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH.
2. Terminology and Requirements Language 2. Terminology and Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN, Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN,
RPL, RPL Domain and ROLL. RPL, RPL Domain and ROLL.
RPL-node: It is device which implements RPL, thus we can say that the RPL-node: A device which implements RPL, thus we can say that the
device is RPL-capable or RPL-aware. Please note that the device can device is RPL-capable or RPL-aware. Please note that the device can
be found inside the LLN or outside LLN. In this document a RPL-node be found inside the LLN or outside LLN. In this document a RPL-node
which is a leaf of a DODAG is called RPL-aware-leaf. which is a leaf of a DODAG is called RPL-aware-leaf.
RPL-not-capable: It is device which does not implement RPL, thus we RPL-not-capable: A device which does not implement RPL, thus we can
can say that the device is not-RPL-aware. Please note that the say that the device is not-RPL-aware. Please note that the device
device can be found inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-aware can be found inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-aware node
node which is a leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf. which is a leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf.
pledge: a new device which seeks admission to a network. (from pledge: a new device which seeks admission to a network. (from
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]) [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra])
Join Registrar and Coordinator (JRC): a device which brings new nodes Join Registrar and Coordinator (JRC): a device which brings new nodes
(pledges) into a network. (from (pledges) into a network. (from
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]) [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra])
Flag day: A "flag day" is a procedure in which the network, or a part Flag day: A "flag day" is a procedure in which the network, or a part
of it, is changed during a planned outage, or suddenly, causing an of it, is changed during a planned outage, or suddenly, causing an
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
option type, and the third bit indicates that the Option Data may option type, and the third bit indicates that the Option Data may
change en route. The remaining bits serve as the option type. change en route. The remaining bits serve as the option type.
Hex Value Binary Value Hex Value Binary Value
act chg rest Description Reference act chg rest Description Reference
--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ---------- --------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option [RFC6553] 0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option [RFC6553]
Figure 1: Option Type in RPL Option. Figure 1: Option Type in RPL Option.
Recent changes in [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis], state: "it is now Recent changes in [RFC8200] (section 4, page 8), states: "it is now
expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and
process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do
so". Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options header (by IPv6 so". Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options header (by IPv6
intermediate nodes) is now optional, but if they are configured to intermediate nodes) is now optional, but if they are configured to
process the header, and if such nodes encounter an option with the process the header, and if such nodes encounter an option with the
first two bits set to 01, they will drop the packet (if they conform first two bits set to 01, they will drop the packet (if they conform
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]). The hosts should do the same, to [RFC8200]). Host systems should do the same, irrespective of the
irrespective of the configuration. configuration.
Based on That, if an IPv6 (intermediate) node (RPL-not-capable) Based on That, if an IPv6 (intermediate) node (RPL-not-capable)
receives a packet with an RPL Option, it should ignore the HBH RPL receives a packet with an RPL Option, it should ignore the HBH RPL
option (skip over this option and continue processing the header). option (skip over this option and continue processing the header).
Thus, this document updates the Option Type field to: the two high Thus, this document updates the Option Type field to: the two high
order bits MUST be set to '00' and the third bit is equal to '1'. order bits MUST be set to '00' and the third bit is equal to '1'.
The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST skip over this The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST skip over this
option and continue processing the header option and continue processing the header ([RFC8200] Section 4.2) if
(Section 4.2.[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] ) if it doesn't recognize the it doesn't recognize the option type, and the third bit continues to
option type, and the third bit continues to be set to indicate that be set to indicate that the Option Data may change en route. The
the Option Data may change en route. The remaining bits serve as the remaining bits serve as the option type and remain as 0x3. This
option type and remain as 0x3. This ensures that a packet that ensures that a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that
leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN entirely) leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the
will not be discarded when it contains the [RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop [RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI.
option known as RPI. This is an update to [RFC6553].
This is a significant update to [RFC6553].
Hex Value Binary Value Hex Value Binary Value
act chg rest Description Reference act chg rest Description Reference
--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ---------- --------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX] 0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX]
Figure 2: Proposed change to the Option Type in RPL Option. Figure 2: Revised Option Type in RPL Option.
This change creates a flag day for existing networks which are This change creates a flag day for existing networks which are
currently using 0x63 as the RPI value. A move to 0x23 will not be currently using 0x63 as the RPI value. A move to 0x23 will not be
understood by those networks. It is suggested that implementations understood by those networks. It is suggested that implementations
accept both 0x63 and 0x23 when processing. When forwarding packets, accept both 0x63 and 0x23 when processing. When forwarding packets,
implementations SHOULD use the same value as it was received. When implementations SHOULD use the same value as it was received. When
originating new packets, implementations SHOULD have an option to originating new packets, implementations SHOULD have an option to
determine which value to originate with, this option is controlled by determine which value to originate with, this option is controlled by
the DIO option described below. the DIO option described below.
A network which is switching from straight 6lowpan compression A network which is switching from straight 6lowpan compression
mechanism to those described in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] will mechanism to those described in [RFC8183] will experience a flag day
experience a flag day in the data compression anyway, and if possible in the data compression anyway, and if possible this change can be
this change can be deployed at the same time. deployed at the same time.
3.2. Updates to RFC 8138 3.2. Updates to RFC 8138
RPI-6LoRH header provides a compressed form for the RPL RPI RPI-6LoRH header provides a compressed form for the RPL RPI
[RFC8138]. It should be considered when the Option Type in RPL [RFC8138]. It should be considered when the Option Type in RPL
Option is decompressed, should take the value of 0x23 instead of Option is decompressed, should take the value of 0x23 instead of
0x63. 0x63.
3.3. Updates to RFC 6550: Indicating the new RPI in the DODAG 3.3. Updates to RFC 6550: Indicating the new RPI in the DODAG
Configuration Option Flag. Configuration Option Flag.
In order to avoid a flag day caused by lack of interoperation between In order to avoid a flag day caused by lack of interoperation between
new RPI (0x23) and old RPI (0x63) nodes, the new nodes need to be new RPI (0x23) and old RPI (0x63) nodes, when there is a mix of new
told that there are old RPI nodes present. This can be done via the nodes and old nodes, the new nodes may be put into a compatibilit
DODAG Configuration Option flag which will propogate through the mode until all of the old nodes are replaced or upgraded.
network. Failure to receive this information will cause dual mode
nodes to originate traffic with the old-RPI (0x63) value.
As states in [RFC6550] the DODAG Configuration option is present in This can be done via a DODAG Configuration Option flag which will
DIO messages. the DODAG Configuration option distribute propogate through the network. Failure to receive this information
configuration information which is generally static and unchanging will cause new nodes to remain in compatibility mode, and originate
within the DODAG. This information is configured at the DODAG root traffic with the old-RPI (0x63) value.
and distributed throughout the DODAG with the DODAG Configuration
option. Nodes other than the DODAG root must not modify this
information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option.
The DODAG Configuration Option is as follow. We are interested in As stated in [RFC6550] the DODAG Configuration option is present in
the Flag field. The remaining fields states as defined in [RFC6550]. DIO messages. The DODAG Configuration option distributes
configuration information. It is generally static, and does not
change within the DODAG. This information is configured at the DODAG
root and distributed throughout the DODAG with the DODAG
Configuration option. Nodes other than the DODAG root do not modify
this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option.
The DODAG Configuration Option is as follows. The Flag field is the
interesting field. The remaining fields states as defined in
[RFC6550].
Flags: The 4-bits remaining unused in the Flags field are reserved Flags: The 4-bits remaining unused in the Flags field are reserved
for flags. The field MUST be initialized to zero by the sender and for flags. The field MUST be initialized to zero by the sender and
MUST be ignored by the receiver. MUST be ignored by the receiver.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Type = 0x04 | Opt Length = 14| Flags | A | PCS| DIOIntDoubl. | | Type = 0x04 | Opt Length = 14| Flags | A | PCS| DIOIntDoubl. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| DIOIntMin. | DIORedund. | MaxRankIncrease | | DIOIntMin. | DIORedund. | MaxRankIncrease |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| MinHopRankIncrease | OCP | | MinHopRankIncrease | OCP |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|Reserved | Def. Lifetime | Lifetime Unit | |Reserved | Def. Lifetime | Lifetime Unit |
+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DODAG Configuration Option. Figure 3: DODAG Configuration Option.
We propose to use the flag in the DODAG Configuration option as Bit number three of flag field in the DODAG Configuration option is
follows: to be used as follows:
+------------+-----------------+---------------+ +------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Bit number | Description | Reference | | Bit number | Description | Reference |
+------------+-----------------+---------------+ +------------+-----------------+---------------+
| 3 | RPI 0x23 enable | This document | | 3 | RPI 0x23 enable | This document |
+------------+-----------------+---------------+ +------------+-----------------+---------------+
Figure 4: DODAG Configuration Option Flag to indicate the RPI-flag- Figure 4: DODAG Configuration Option Flag to indicate the RPI-flag-
day. day.
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 22
(6LoWPAN Node) as leaf logically organized in a DODAG structure. (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf logically organized in a DODAG structure.
(Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph). (Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph).
RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6 RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6
[RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information [RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information
Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination
Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with
different Code values. A RPL Stack is showed in Figure 1. different Code values. A RPL Stack is showed in Figure 1.
RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM), RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM),
it is fully stateful or an in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully it is fully stateful; in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully source
source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non- routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non-storing,
storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non- i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non-storing
storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the time of
time of writing this document. writing this document.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Upper Layers | | Upper Layers |
| | | |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| RPL | | RPL |
| | | |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| ICMPv6 | | ICMPv6 |
| | | |
skipping to change at page 9, line 50 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
F | | G | H | | F | | G | H | |
+-----+-+ +-|-----+ +---|--+ +---|---+ +---|---+ +-----+-+ +-|-----+ +---|--+ +---|---+ +---|---+
| Raf | | ~Raf | | Raf | | Raf | | ~Raf | | Raf | | ~Raf | | Raf | | Raf | | ~Raf |
| 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN |
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 6: A reference RPL Topology. Figure 6: A reference RPL Topology.
Figure 2 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The Figure 2 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The
letters above the nodes are there so that they may be referenced in letters above the nodes are there so that they may be referenced in
subsequent sections. In the figure, a 6LR is a router. A 6LN can be subsequent sections. In the figure, 6LR represents a full router
a router or a host. The 6LN leaves (Raf - "RPL aware leaf"-) marked node. The 6LN is a RPL aware router, or host.
as (F and I) are RPL hosts that does not have forwarding capability.
The 6LN leaf (H) is a RPL router. The leafs marked as ~Raf "not-RPL But, the 6LN leaves (Raf - "RPL aware leaf"-) marked as (F, H and I)
aware leaf" (G and J) are devices which do not speak RPL at all (not- are RPL nodes with no children hosts.
RPL-aware), but uses Router-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and
efficient-ND only to participate in the network [RFC6775]. In the The leafs marked as ~Raf "not-RPL aware leaf" (G and J) are devices
document these leafs (G and J) are often named IPv6 node. The 6LBR which do not speak RPL at all (not-RPL-aware), but uses Router-
in the figure is the root of the Global DODAG. Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and efficient-ND only to participate
in the network [RFC6775]. In the document these leafs (G and J) are
also refered to as an IPv6 node.
The 6LBR ("A") in the figure is the root of the Global DODAG.
5. Use cases 5. Use cases
In the data plane a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 In the data plane a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation is going to be analyzed for a number of representative encapsulation are going to be analyzed for a number of representative
traffic flows. traffic flows.
This document assumes that the LLN is using the no-drop RPI option This document assumes that the LLN is using the no-drop RPI option
(0x23). (0x23).
The uses cases describe the communication between RPL-aware-nodes, The uses cases describe the communication between RPL-aware-nodes,
with the root (6LBR), and with Internet. This document also describe with the root (6LBR), and with Internet. This document also describe
the communication between nodes acting as leaf that does not the communication between nodes acting as leaves that do not
understand RPL and they are part of hte LLN. We name these nodes as understand RPL, but are part of the LLN. We name these nodes as not-
not-RPL-aware-leaf.(e.g. section 5.4- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf. (e.g. Section 6.1.4 Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root) We describe also how is the communication inside of the LLN root) We describe also how is the communication inside of the LLN
when it has the final destination addressed outside of the LLN e.g. when it has the final destination addressed outside of the LLN e.g.
with destination to Internet. (e.g. section 5.7- Flow from not-RPL- with destination to Internet. (e.g. Section 6.2.3 Flow from not-
aware-leaf to Internet) RPL-aware-leaf to Internet)
The uses cases comprise as follow: The uses cases comprise as follow:
Interaction between Leaf and Root: Interaction between Leaf and Root:
RPL-aware-leaf to root RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to RPL-aware-leaf root to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to root not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
skipping to change at page 11, line 16 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
Interaction between Leafs: Interaction between Leafs:
RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
This document assumes the rule that a Header cannot be inserted or This document is consistent with the rule that a Header cannot be
removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being
is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in routed. This is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as
[RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except by the outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except
sender or the receiver. by the sender or the receiver.
But, options in the Hop-by-Hop Option Header whose option type has However, unlike [RFC6553], the Hop-by-Hop Option Header used for the
the first two bits set to '00' MUST ignored when received by a host RPI artifact has the first two bits set to '00'. This means that the
or router that does not understand that option ( Section 4.2 RPI artifact will be ignored when received by a host or router that
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]). does not understand that option ( Section 4.2 [RFC8200]).
This means that when the no-drop RPI option code 0x23 is used, a This means that when the no-drop RPI option code 0x23 is used, a
packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN
entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the [RFC6553] RPL entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the [RFC6553] RPL
Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI. Thus, the RPI Hop-by-Hop option MAY Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI. Thus, the RPI Hop-by-Hop option MAY
be left in place even if the end host does not understand it. be left in place even if the end host does not understand it.
NOTE: There is some possible security risk when the RPI information NOTE: There is some possible security risk when the RPI information
is released to the Internet. At this point this is a theoretical is released to the Internet. At this point this is a theoretical
situation. It is clear that the RPI option would waste some network situation; no clear attack has been described. At worst, it is clear
bandwidth when it escapes. that the RPI option would waste some network bandwidth when it
escapes. This is traded off against the savings in the LLN by not
having to encapsulate the packet in order to remove the artifact.
An intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or Despite being legal to leave the RPI artifact in place, an
RPI Option) must encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or
header. The new header can be placed is placed after this new outer RPI Option) MUST still encapsulate the packet in an (additional)
IP header. outer IP header. The new header is placed after this new outer IP
header.
A corollory is that an SHR3 or RPI Option can only be removed by an A corollory is that an SHR3 or RPI Option can only be removed by an
intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header, intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header,
which is addressed to the intermediate router. When it does so, the which is addressed TO the intermediate router. When it does so, the
whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may be whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may be
added). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being added). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being
addressed to the next hop router using link-local addresses. addressed to the next hop router using link-local addresses.
Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by
routers on the path of the packet without the need to add to remove routers on the path of the packet without the need to add to remove
an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this
modification in mind, and both the RPL RH and the RPL option are modification in mind, and both the RPL RH and the RPL option are
marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsec AH security header can be marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsec AH security header can be
applied across these headers, but it can not secure the values which applied across these headers, but it can not secure the values which
mutate. mutate.
RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one
exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the
root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written, root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written,
so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about
which forwarding table to use (as the root has already made all which forwarding table to use (as the root has already made all
routing decisions). There still may be cases (such as in 6tisch) routing decisions). However, there are still cases, such as in
where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to 6tisch, where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be
pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop. needed to pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop.
In the tables present in this document, the term "RPL aware leaf" is In the tables present in this document, the term "RPL aware leaf" is
has been shortened to "Raf", and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been has been shortened to "Raf", and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been
shortened to "~Raf" to make the table fit in available space. shortened to "~Raf" to make the table fit in available space.
The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process
is clear, while later examples are more concise. is clear, while later examples are more concise.
6. Storing mode 6. Storing mode
In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender can determine if the In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender can determine if the
destination is inside the LLN by looking if the destination address destination is inside the LLN by looking if the destination address
is matched by the DIO's PIO option. is matched by the DIO's PIO option.
The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the The following table itemizes which headers are needed in the
following scenarios, and indicates when the IP-in-IP header must be following scenarios, and indicates if the IP-in-IP header must be
inserted on a hop-by-hop basis, and when it can target the inserted on a hop-by-hop basis, or when it can target the destination
destination node directly. There are these possible situations: hop- node directly. There are these possible situations: hop-by-hop
by-hop necessary (indicated by "hop"), or destination address necessary (indicated by "hop"), or destination address possible
possible (indicated by "dst"). In all cases hop by hop can be used. (indicated by "dst"). In all cases hop by hop MAY be used.
In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the column is left In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the column is left
blank. blank.
In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies
inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the
RH3 is not need because we do not indicate the route in storing mode. RH3 is not need because we do not indicate the route in storing mode.
The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN In each case, 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to
(Figure 2). destination. "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that
the packet go through from source (6LN) to destination.
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+ The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN (see
| Interaction between | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | Figure 6).
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| | Raf to root | No | -- | +---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | Interaction between | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst |
| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | No | -- | +---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | | Raf to root | No | -- |
| | root to ~Raf | No | -- | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | Leaf - Root | root to Raf | No | -- |
| | ~Raf to root | Yes | root | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+ | | root to ~Raf | No | -- |
| | Raf to Int | No | -- | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | | ~Raf to root | Yes | root |
| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf | Yes | Raf | +---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | | Raf to Int | No | -- |
| | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf | Yes | Raf |
| | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+ | | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root |
| | Raf to Raf | No | -- | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
| | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- | +---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+----------+--------------+ | | Raf to Raf | No | -- |
| | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst | + +--------------+----------+--------------+
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+ | | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- |
| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop | + Leaf - Leaf +--------------+----------+--------------+
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+ | | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
Figure 7: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode. Figure 7: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode.
6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root 6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in
storing mode (SM) between, storing mode (SM) between,
RPL-aware-leaf to root RPL-aware-leaf to root
skipping to change at page 13, line 43 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
Figure 7: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode. Figure 7: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode.
6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root 6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in
storing mode (SM) between, storing mode (SM) between,
RPL-aware-leaf to root RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to RPL-aware-leaf root to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to root not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to not-RPL-aware-leaf root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information
instanceID and rank information. instanceID and rank information.
As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] an RPL-aware-leaf node does
not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages
from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf
node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may
issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS
messages. messages.
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR)
For example, the communication flow would be: Node F --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A root(6LBR) Node B --> Node A root(6LBR)
6LR_i (Node E and Node B) are the intermediate routers from source to As it was mentioned in this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full-
destination. In this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers fledged RPL routers.
(6LR) that the packet go through from source (6LN) to destination
(6LBR).
As it was mentioned In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full-
fledge RPL routers.
The 6LN (Node F) inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR The 6LN (Node F) inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR
(Node E) which decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up. (Node E) which decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up.
When the packet arrives at 6LBR (Node A), the RPI is removed and the When the packet arrives at 6LBR (Node A), the RPI is removed and the
packet is processed. packet is processed.
No IP-in-IP header is required. No IP-in-IP header is required.
The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is
addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating
skipping to change at page 15, line 23 skipping to change at page 15, line 23
+-------------------+-----+-------+------+ +-------------------+-----+-------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root
6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
For example, the communication flow would be: Node A root(6LBR) --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node A root(6LBR) -->
Node B --> Node D --> Node F Node B --> Node D --> Node F
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN).
In this case the 6LBR inserts RPI header and sends the packet down, In this case the 6LBR inserts RPI header and sends the packet down,
the 6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID the 6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (it examines the
for multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed. instanceID to identify the right forwarding table), the packet is
processed in the 6LN and the RPI removed.
No IP-in-IP header is required. No IP-in-IP header is required.
+-------------------+------+-------+------+ +-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+ +-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+ +-------------------+------+-------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf
6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)
For example, the communication flow would be: Node A root(6LBR) -->
Node B --> Node E --> Node G
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6).
For example, a communication flow could be: Node A root(6LBR) -->
Node B --> Node E --> Node G
As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this
situation is identical to the previous scenario. situation is identical to the previous scenario.
+-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 |
+-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
skipping to change at page 16, line 33 skipping to change at page 16, line 26
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware- Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware-
leaf leaf
6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR)
For example, the communication flow would be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A root(6LBR) Node B --> Node A root(6LBR)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For
example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the
IPv6 node (Node G).
When the packet arrives from IPv6 node (Node G) to 6LR_1 (Node E), When the packet arrives from IPv6 node (Node G) to 6LR_1 (Node E),
the 6LR_1 will insert a RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 the 6LR_1 will insert a RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6
header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be addressed to the next hop header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be addressed to the next hop
(Node B), or to the root (Node A). The root removes the header and (Node B), or to the root (Node A). The root removes the header and
processes the packet. processes the packet.
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR |
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 17, line 48 skipping to change at page 17, line 30
RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be
ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware. ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware.
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node A root(6LBR) --> Internet Node B --> Node A root(6LBR) --> Internet
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR.
No IP-in-IP header is required. No IP-in-IP header is required.
Note: In this use case we use a node as leaf, but this use case can Note: In this use case we use a node as leaf, but this use case can
be also applicable to any RPL-node type (e.g. 6LR) be also applicable to any RPL-node type (e.g. 6LR)
+-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 18, line 26 skipping to change at page 18, line 4
+-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet Internet
6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
For example, a communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A
For example, the communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A
root(6LBR) --> Node B --> Node D --> Node F root(6LBR) --> Node B --> Node D --> Node F
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN).
When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added
in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the
rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is
removed and the packet processed. removed and the packet processed.
+----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN |
| | t | | | | | | t | | | |
+----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 19, line 32 skipping to change at page 18, line 39
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware- Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware-
leaf leaf
6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) -->
Internet Internet
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A root(6LBR) --> Internet Node B --> Node A root(6LBR) --> Internet
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR.
The 6LR_1 (i=1) node will add an IP-in-IP(RPI) header addressed The 6LR_1 (i=1) node will add an IP-in-IP(RPI) header addressed
either to the root, or hop-by-hop such that the root can remove the either to the root, or hop-by-hop such that the root can remove the
RPI header before passing upwards. RPI header before passing upwards. (EDNOTE: we SHOULD recommend one
or the other)
The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero
so that the packet can be better compressed through the LLN. The so that the packet can be better compressed through the LLN. The
6LBR will set the flow label of the packet to a non-zero value when 6LBR will set the flow label of the packet to a non-zero value when
sending to the Internet. sending to the Internet.
+---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne |
| | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t |
+---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
skipping to change at page 20, line 34 skipping to change at page 19, line 34
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
Internet Internet
6.2.4. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf 6.2.4. SM: 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_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)
For example, the communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A For example, a communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A
root(6LBR) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G root(6LBR) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 6LR_i
updates the rank in the RPI.
The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IP-in-IP header.
The IP-in-IP can be addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf, leaving the The IP-in-IP is addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf, leaving the RPI
RPI inside. inside.
Note that there is a requirement that the final node be able to
remove one or more IPIP headers which are all addressed to it.
(EDNOTE: this should go into [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis])
The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IP-in-IP header to zero The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IP-in-IP header to zero
in order to aid in compression. in order to aid in compression.
+-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+
| Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | | Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 |
+-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 21, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 40
RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop optimization for both In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop optimization for both
storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a packet destined storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a packet destined
to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550]. to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. See section 9 in
[RFC6550].
In this case the flow comprises: When the nodes are not directly connected, then in storing mode, the
flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node E --> Node H Node B --> Node E --> Node H
6LR_ia (Node D) are the intermediate routers from source to the 6LR_ia (Node D) are the intermediate routers from source to the
common parent (6LR_x) (Node B) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the common parent (6LR_x) (Node B) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the
number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN (Node F) number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN (Node F)
to the common parent (6LR_x). to the common parent (6LR_x).
6LR_id (Node E) are the intermediate routers from the common parent 6LR_id (Node E) are the intermediate routers from the common parent
(6LR_x) (Node B) to destination 6LN (Node H). In this case, "1 <= id (6LR_x) (Node B) to destination 6LN (Node H). In this case, "1 <= id
>= m", m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through >= m", m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through
from the common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. from the common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN.
This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent It is assume that the two nodes are in the same RPL Domain (that they
(Node B), the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to share the same DODAG root). At the common parent (Node B), the
decreasing the rank). direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the rank).
While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or
remove the RPI, so no IP-in-IP headers are necessary. This may be remove the RPI, so no IP-in-IP headers are necessary. This may be
done regardless of where the destination is, as the included RPI will done regardless of where the destination is, as the included RPI will
be ignored by the receiver. be ignored by the receiver.
+---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x (common | 6LR_id | 6LN | | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x (common | 6LR_id | 6LN |
| | src | | parent) | | dst | | | src | | parent) | | dst |
+---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+
skipping to change at page 22, line 45 skipping to change at page 21, line 47
Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware
6LN (IPv6) 6LN (IPv6)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node E --> Node G Node B --> Node E --> Node G
6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (6LN) to the common 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (6LN) to the common
parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of
routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common
parent (6LR_x). parent (6LR_x).
6LR_id (Node E) are the intermediate routers from the common parent 6LR_id (Node E) are the intermediate routers from the common parent
(6LR_x) (Node B) to destination not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) (Node G). (6LR_x) (Node B) to destination not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) (Node G).
In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of routers (6LR) that In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of routers (6LR) that
skipping to change at page 23, line 39 skipping to change at page 22, line 41
Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL- Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) -->
6LR_id --> 6LN 6LR_id --> 6LN
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node D --> Node F Node B --> Node D --> Node F
6LR_ia (Node E) are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL- 6LR_ia (Node E) are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-
aware 6LN (IPv6)) (Node G) to the common parent (6LR_x) (Node B) In aware 6LN (IPv6)) (Node G) to the common parent (6LR_x) (Node B). In
this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source to the common parent. packet go through from source to the common parent.
6LR_id (Node D) are the intermediate routers from the common parent 6LR_id (Node D) are the intermediate routers from the common parent
(6LR_x) (Node B) to destination 6LN (Node F). In this case, "1 <= id (6LR_x) (Node B) to destination 6LN (Node F). In this case, "1 <= id
>= m", m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through >= m", m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through
from the common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. from the common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN.
The 6LR_ia (ia=1) (Node E) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node The 6LR_ia (ia=1) (Node E) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node
(Node G) and inserts and the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 (Node G) and inserts and the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6
skipping to change at page 24, line 41 skipping to change at page 23, line 43
+--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
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
6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_1--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_1--> 6LR_ia --> 6LR_id --> not-
6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 dst) RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 dst)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node C --> Node J Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node C --> Node J
Internet 6LR_ia (Node E and Node B) are the intermediate routers from Internal nodes 6LR_ia (e.g: Node E or Node B) are the intermediate
source (not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src))(Node G) to the root (6LBR) routers from the not-RPL-aware source (Node G) to the root (6LBR)
(Node A) In this case, "1 < ia >= n", n is the number of routers (Node A). In this case, "1 < ia >= n", n is the number of routers
(6LR) that the packet go through from IPv6 src to the root. (6LR) that the packet go through from IPv6 src to the root.
6LR_id (C) are the intermediate routers from the root (Node A) to 6LR_id (C) are the intermediate routers from the root (Node A) to the
destination (IPv6 dst) (Node J). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is destination Node J. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of
the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the root routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the root to destination
to destination (IPv6 dst). (IPv6 dst).
This flow is identical to Section 6.3.3 Note that this flow is identical to Section 6.3.3, except for where
the IPIP header is inserted.
The 6LR_1 (Node E) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node (Node The 6LR_1 (Node E) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node (Node
G) and inserts the RPI header (RPIa) encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 G) and inserts the RPI header (RPIa), encapsulated in an IPv6-in-IPv6
header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header is addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LBR header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header is addressed to the final
remove the IPv6-in-IPv6 header and insert another one (RPIb) with destination.
destination to 6LR_m (Node C) node.
One of the side-effects of inserting IP-in-IP RPI header at 6LR_1, is
that now all the packets will go through the 6LBR, even though there
exists a shorter P2P path to the destination 6LN in storing mode.
One possible solution is given by the work in
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]. Once we have route projection, the
root can find that this traffic deserves optimization (based on
volume and path length, or additional knowledge on that particular
flow) and project a DAO into 6LR_1.
+-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ +----------+-----+-------------+--------------+--------------+------+
| Heade | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_m | IPv | | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LR_m | IPv6 |
| r | 6 | | | | | 6 | | | 6 | | | | dst |
| | src | | | | | dst | | | src | | | | |
+-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ +----------+-----+-------------+--------------+--------------+------+
| Inser | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- |
| ted h | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | | | headers | | IP(RPI) | | | |
| eader | | | | | | | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| s | | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| Remov | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed he | | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| aders | | | | | | | | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | | headers | | | IP(RPI) | IP(RPI) | |
| added | | | | | IP(RPI_b) | | | Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| heade | | | | | | | | d | | | | | |
| rs | | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| Modif | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | +----------+-----+-------------+--------------+--------------+------+
| ied h | | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | |
| eader | | | | | | |
| s | | | | | | |
| Untou | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ched | | | | | | |
| heade | | | | | | |
| 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
non-RPL-aware-leaf non-RPL-aware-leaf
7. Non Storing mode 7. Non Storing mode
In Non Storing Mode (Non SM) (fully source routed), the 6LBR (DODAG In Non Storing Mode (Non SM) (fully source routed), the 6LBR (DODAG
root) has complete knowledge about the connectivity of all DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the connectivity of all DODAG
nodes, and all traffic flows through the root node. Thus, there is nodes, and all traffic flows through the root node. Thus, there is
no need for all nodes to know about the existence of non-RPL aware no need for all nodes to know about the existence of non-RPL aware
nodes. Only the 6LBR needs to change when there are non-RPL aware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs to act if compensation is necessary for
nodes. non-RPL aware receivers.
The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the
following scenarios, and indicates when the RPI, RH3 and IP-in-IP following scenarios, and indicates when the RPI, RH3 and IP-in-IP
header must be inserted. There are these possible situations: header must be inserted. There are these possible situations:
destination address possible (indicated by "dst"), to a 6LR, to a 6LN destination address possible (indicated by "dst"), to a 6LR, to a 6LN
or to the root. In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the or to the root. In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the
column is left blank. column is left blank.
The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN
(Figure 3). (Figure 3).
+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ +-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| Interaction | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP | | Interaction | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP |
| between | | | | | dst | | between | | | | | dst |
+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ +-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- | | | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | -- | | Leaf - Root | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | -- |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | root to ~Raf | No | Yes | Yes | 6LR | | | root to ~Raf |no(1)| Yes | Yes | 6LR |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root | | | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root |
+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ +-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | | | Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | dst | | Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf |no(1)| Yes | Yes | dst |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | | | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | Int to ~Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | 6LR | | | Int to ~Raf |no(1)| Yes | Yes | 6LR |
+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ +-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/dst | | | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/dst |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | | | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR |
+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + Leaf - Leaf +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LN | | | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LN |
+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ + +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | | | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR |
+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+ +-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
(1)-6tisch networks may need the RPI information.
Figure 8: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP Figure 8: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP
encapsulation. encapsulation.
7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root 7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in
Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between, Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between,
RPL-aware-leaf to root RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to RPL-aware-leaf root to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to root not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to not-RPL-aware-leaf root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
skipping to change at page 28, line 13 skipping to change at page 26, line 20
root to not-RPL-aware-leaf root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send
traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included to avoid/detect traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included to avoid/detect
loops. loops.
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node A (root) Node B --> Node A (root)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR).
This situation is the same case as storing mode. This situation is the same case as storing mode.
+-------------------+-----+-------+------+ +-------------------+-----+-------+------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR |
skipping to change at page 28, line 41 skipping to change at page 26, line 48
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
root root
7.1.2. on-SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 7.1.2. on-SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node B
B --> Node D --> Node F --> Node D --> Node F
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN).
The 6LBR will insert an RH3, and may optionally insert an RPI header. The 6LBR will insert an RH3, and may optionally insert an RPI header.
No IP-in-IP header is necessary as the traffic originates with an RPL No IP-in-IP header is necessary as the traffic originates with an RPL
aware node, the 6LBR. The destination is known to RPL-aware because, aware node, the 6LBR. The destination is known to RPL-aware because,
the root knows the whole topology in non-storing mode. the root knows the whole topology in non-storing mode.
+-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+
skipping to change at page 29, line 24 skipping to change at page 27, line 32
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware- Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-
leaf leaf
7.1.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 7.1.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node B
B --> Node E --> Node G --> Node E --> Node G
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6).
In 6LBR the RH3 is added, modified in each intermediate 6LR (6LR_1 In 6LBR the RH3 is added, it is modified at each intermediate 6LR
and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n), but left (6LR_1 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n),
there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not but left there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not
understand it will ignore it (following 2460bis), thus encapsulation understand it will ignore it (following 2460bis), thus encapsulation
is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the
root, the 6LBR is able to address the IP-in-IP header to the last root, the 6LBR may optionally address the IP-in-IP header to the last
6LR. 6LR, such that it is removed prior to the IPv6 node.
+---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 | | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
| Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- | | Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | RH3 | | | | | headers | RH3 | | | |
| Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- | | Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
skipping to change at page 30, line 29 skipping to change at page 28, line 29
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL- Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
7.1.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 7.1.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A (root) Node B --> Node A (root)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For
example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the
IPv6 node. IPv6 node.
In this case the RPI is added by the first 6LR (6LR1) (Node E), In this case the RPI is added by the first 6LR (6LR1) (Node E),
encapsulated in an IP-in-IP header, and is modified in the followings encapsulated in an IP-in-IP header, and is modified in the following
6LRs. The RPI and entire packet is consumed by the root. 6LRs. The RPI and entire packet is consumed by the root.
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR |
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) |
| headers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 31, line 25 skipping to change at page 29, line 25
| 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
root root
7.2. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet 7.2. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in This section will describe the communication flow in Non Storing Mode
Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between, (Non-SM) between:
RPL-aware-leaf to Internet RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to RPL-aware-leaf Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
7.2.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 7.2.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node A --> Internet Node B --> Node A --> Internet
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR.
This case is identical to storing-mode case. This case is identical to storing-mode case.
The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression, and The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression, and
the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the
skipping to change at page 32, line 28 skipping to change at page 30, line 28
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet Internet
7.2.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 7.2.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
For example, the communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A For example, a communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A
(root) --> Node B --> Node D --> Node F (root) --> Node B --> Node D --> Node F
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN).
The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and
address of the target node, it can address the IP-in-IP header to address of the target node, it can address the IP-in-IP header to
that node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to that node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to
aid compression. aid compression.
The RPI may be added or not, it is optional. The RPI may be added or not as required by networks such as 6tisch.
The RPI is unnecessary for loop detection.
+--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN |
| | net | | | | | | t | | | |
+--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP (RH | -- | -- |
| ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | | headers | | 3,opt:RPI) | | |
| ders | | | | | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP |
| Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | | headers | | | | (RH3,opt:RPI) |
| d head | | | | pt:RPI) | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ers | | | | | | headers | | | | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- |
| added | | | | | | headers | | | (RH3,opt:RPI) | |
| header | | | | | | Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| s | | | | | | d | | | | |
| Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | | headers | | | | |
| ed hea | | | pt:RPI) | | +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| ders | | | | |
| Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| hed he | | | | |
| aders | | | | |
+--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL- Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
7.2.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 7.2.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) -->
Internet Internet
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A --> Internet Node B --> Node A --> Internet
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. e.g 6LR_1 (i=1). packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. e.g 6LR_1 (i=1).
In this case the flow label is recommended to be zero in the IPv6 In this case the flow label is recommended to be zero in the IPv6
node. As RPL headers are added in the IPv6 node, the first 6LR node. As RPL headers are added in the IPv6 node, the first 6LR
(6LR_1) will add an RPI header inside a new IP-in-IP header. The IP- (6LR_1) will add an RPI header inside a new IP-in-IP header. The IP-
in-IP header will be addressed to the root. This case is identical in-IP header will be addressed to the root. This case is identical
to the storing-mode case (Section 5.7). to the storing-mode case (see Section 6.2.3).
+---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ +-----------+------+-----------+-------------+-----------+----------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet |
| | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | | | | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | |
+---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ +-----------+------+-----------+-------------+-----------+----------+
| Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | IP(RPI) | | | | | headers | | (RPI) | | | |
| headers | | | | | | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | | headers | | | | (RPI) | |
| headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | |
| added | | | | | | | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | (RPI) | | |
| Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | IP(RPI) | | | | headers | | | | | |
| headers | | | | | | +-----------+------+-----------+-------------+-----------+----------+
| Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed | | | | | |
| 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
Internet Internet
7.2.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 7.2.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)
For example, the communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A For example, a communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A
(root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6).
The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR
will know the path, and will recognize that the final node is not an will know the path, and will recognize that the final node is not an
RPL capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from RPL capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from
the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IP-in-IP header the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IP-in-IP header
destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will set to zero the flow destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will set to zero the flow
label upon entry in order to aid compression. label upon entry in order to aid compression.
+--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ +----------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------------+------+
| Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i(i=2,. | IPv6 | | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i(i=2,..,n) | IPv6 |
| | net | | | .,n) | | | | t | | | | |
+--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ +----------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------------+------+
| Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | -- | | Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | | | headers | | IP | | | |
| ders | | | | | | | | | (RH3, o | | | |
| Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | | | | pt:RPI) | | | |
| d head | | | | IP(RH3, | | | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- |
| ers | | | | RPI) | | | headers | | | | (RH3,RPI) | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| added | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| header | | | | | | | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP | -- |
| s | | | | | | | headers | | | (RH3,RPI) | (RH3,RPI) | |
| Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | | Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI |
| ed hea | | | IP(RH3, | IP(RH3, | | | d | | | | | |
| ders | | | RPI) | RPI) | | | headers | | | | | |
| Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | +----------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------------+------+
| hed he | | | | | |
| aders | | | | | |
+--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+
NonStoring: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- NonStoring: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
7.3. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leafs 7.3. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leafs
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in
Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between, Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between,
RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
skipping to change at page 35, line 49 skipping to change at page 33, line 46
not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
7.3.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 7.3.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
6LN src --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN dst 6LN src --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN dst
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node H Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node H
6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this
case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from 6LN to the root. packet go through from 6LN to the root.
6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.
In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate
routers (6LR). routers (6LR).
This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating
node will add an RPI header to the original packet, and send the node will add an RPI header to the original packet, and send the
skipping to change at page 37, line 5 skipping to change at page 34, line 28
The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it
add an IP-in-IP header. It SHOULD be able to remove the RPI, as it add an IP-in-IP header. It SHOULD be able to remove the RPI, as it
was contained in an IP-in-IP header addressed to it. Otherwise, was contained in an IP-in-IP header addressed to it. Otherwise,
there MAY be an RPI header buried inside the inner IP header, which there MAY be an RPI header buried inside the inner IP header, which
should get ignored. should get ignored.
Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially
non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario
Section 7.1.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR. Section 7.1.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR.
+---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ +-----------+----------+--------+-------------+--------+------------+
| Header | 6LN src | 6LR_ | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN dst | | Header | 6LN src | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN dst |
| | | ia | | d | | +-----------+----------+--------+-------------+--------+------------+
+---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ | Inserted | IP-in-IP | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | -- |
| Inserte | IP-in- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3 | -- | -- | | headers | (RPI1) | | (RH3->6LN, | | |
| d | IP(RPI1) | | to 6LN, opt | | | | | | | opt RPI2) | | |
| headers | | | RPI2) | | | | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | IP-in-IP |
| Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | | headers | | | (RPI1) | | (RH3, opt |
| headers | | | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | | | | | | | RPI2) |
| | | | | | RPI2) | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | |
| added | | | | | | | Modified | -- | RPI1 | -- | RPI2 | -- |
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| Modifie | -- | RPI1 | -- | RPI2 | -- | | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| headers | | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------+-------------+--------+------------+
| Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed | | | | | |
| headers | | | | | |
+---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
7.3.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 7.3.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware (IPv6) 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware (IPv6)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G
6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this
case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR)
6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.
In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate
routers (6LR). routers (6LR).
As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert an RPI (RPI_1) header As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert an RPI (RPI_1) header
which MUST be in an IP-in-IP header addressed to the root so that the which MUST be in an IP-in-IP header addressed to the root so that the
6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a
new IP-in-IP header addressed to the 6LN destination node. The RPI new IP-in-IP header addressed to the 6LN destination node. The RPI
is optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2). is optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2).
+--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ +-----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+-------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | | Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 |
+--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ +-----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+-------+
| Insert | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | | Inserted | IP-in-IP | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | -- |
| ed hea | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | | | | headers | (RPI1) | | (RH3, opt | | |
| ders | | | RPI_2) | | | | | | | RPI_2) | | |
| Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP | -- |
| d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, | | | headers | | | (RPI_1) | (RH3, opt | |
| ers | | | | opt RPI_2) | | | | | | | RPI_2) | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| added | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| header | | | | | | | Modified | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | IP-in-IP | -- |
| s | | | | | | | headers | | (RPI_1) | | (RH3, opt | |
| Modifi | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | | | | | | RPI_2) | |
| ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | | | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | opt |
| ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | | headers | | | | | RPI_2 |
| Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | opt | +-----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+-------+
| hed he | | | | | RPI_ |
| aders | | | | | 2 |
+--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
not-RPL-aware-leaf not-RPL-aware-leaf
7.3.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware- 7.3.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-
leaf leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id -->
6LN 6LN
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node H Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node H
6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root. In this
case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR)
6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.
In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate
routers (6LR). routers (6LR).
This scenario is mostly identical to the previous one. The RPI is This scenario is mostly identical to the previous one. The RPI is
added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IP-in-IP header addressed to added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IP-in-IP header addressed to
the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add it's own IP-in-IP the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add it's own IP-in-IP
header containing an RH3 header and optional RPI (RPI_2). header containing an RH3 header and optional RPI (RPI_2).
+--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ +-----------+------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN | | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN |
| | 6 | | | | | +-----------+------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+
+--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP | -- | -- |
| Insert | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | -- | | headers | | (RPI_1) | (RH3, opt | | |
| ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | | | | | | RPI_2) | | |
| ders | | | RPI_2) | | | | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- | IP-in-IP |
| Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | | headers | | | (RPI_1) | | (RH3, opt |
| d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | | | | | | | RPI_2) |
| ers | | | | | opt RPI_2) | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | |
| added | | | | | | | Modified | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | -- |
| header | | | | | | | headers | | | | (RH3, opt | |
| s | | | | | | | | | | | RPI_2) | |
| Modifi | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed hea | | | | IP(RH3, | | | headers | | | | | |
| ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | +-----------+------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+
| Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| hed he | | | | | |
| aders | | | | | |
+--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
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
RPL-aware-leaf RPL-aware-leaf
7.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL- 7.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-
aware-leaf aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises: In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id -->
not-RPL-aware (IPv6 dst) not-RPL-aware (IPv6 dst)
For example, the communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E --> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G --> Node E -->
Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node C --> Node J Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node C --> Node J
6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root. In this
case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR)
6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.
In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate
routers (6LR). routers (6LR).
This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases. This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases.
+---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ +------------+-------+-----------+------------+-------------+-------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 |
| | 6 | | | | dst | | | src | | | | dst |
| | src | | | | | +------------+-------+-----------+------------+-------------+-------+
+---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP | -- | -- |
| Inserte | -- | IP-in- | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- | -- | | headers | | (RPI_1) | (RH3) | | |
| d | | IP(RPI_1) | | | | | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP | -- |
| headers | | | | | | | headers | | | (RPI_1) | (RH3, opt | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | | | | | | RPI_2) | |
| headers | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | RPI_2) | | | headers | | | | | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| added | | | | | | | headers | | | | | |
| headers | | | | | | | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Modifie | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | |
| d | | | | | | +------------+-------+-----------+------------+-------------+-------+
| headers | | | | | |
| Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed | | | | | |
| 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
8. Observations about the cases 8. Observations about the cases
8.1. Storing mode 8.1. Storing mode
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows that the hop-by-hop IP-in-IP [RFC8183] shows that the hop-by-hop IP-in-IP header can be compressed
header can be compressed using IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IP-in-IP-6LoRH) header using IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IP-in-IP-6LoRH) header as described in
as described in Section 7 of the document. Section 7 of the document.
There are potential significant advantages to having a single code There are potential significant advantages to having a single code
path that always processes IP-in-IP headers with no options. path that always processes IP-in-IP headers with no options.
Thanks to the change of the RPI option type from 0x63 to 0x23, there Thanks to the change of the RPI option type from 0x63 to 0x23, there
is no longer any uncertainty about when to use an IP-in-IP header in is no longer any uncertainty about when to use an IP-in-IP header in
the storing mode. A Hop-by-Hop Options Header containing the RPI the storing mode. A Hop-by-Hop Options Header containing the RPI
option SHOULD always be added when 6LRs originate packets (without option SHOULD always be added when 6LRs originate packets (without
IP-in-IP headers), and IP-in-IP headers should always be added IP-in-IP headers), and IP-in-IP headers should always be added
(addressed to the root when on the way up, to the end-host when on (addressed to the root when on the way up, to the end-host when on
the way down) when a 6LR find that it needs to insert a Hop-by-Hop the way down) when a 6LR find that it needs to insert a Hop-by-Hop
Options Header containing the RPI option. Options Header containing the RPI option.
In order to support the above two cases with full generality, the
different situations (always do IP-in-IP vs never use IP-in-IP)
should be signaled in the RPL protocol itself.
8.2. Non-Storing mode 8.2. Non-Storing mode
In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is
much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the
connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the
root node. root node.
The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will
receive a DAO about that node from the 6LN immediately above that receive a DAO about that node from the 6LN immediately above that
node. This means that the non-storing mode case can avoid ever using node. This means that the non-storing mode case can avoid ever using
hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers. hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers for traffic originating from the root to
leafs.
Unlike in the storing mode case, there is no need for all nodes to The non-storing mode case does not require the type change from 0x63
know about the existence of non-RPL aware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs to 0x23, as the root can always create the right packet. The type
to change when there are non-RPL aware nodes. Further, in the non- change does not adversely affect the non-storing case.
storing case, the 6LBR is informed by the DAOs when there are non-RPL
aware nodes.
9. 6LoRH Compression cases 9. 6LoRH Compression cases
The [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method The [RFC8183] proposes a compression method for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-
for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6. IPv6.
In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non- In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-
RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise
an IP-in-IP and RPI compression headers. The type of this case is an IP-in-IP and RPI compression headers. The type of this case is
critical since IP-in-IP is encapsulating a RPI header. critical since IP-in-IP is encapsulating a RPI header.
+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
|1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC | |1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC |
+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
skipping to change at page 42, line 13 skipping to change at page 39, line 18
Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23. Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23.
Hex Value Binary Value Hex Value Binary Value
act chg rest Description Reference act chg rest Description Reference
--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ---------- --------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX] 0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX]
0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option(DEPRECATED) [RFC6553][RFCXXXX] 0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option(DEPRECATED) [RFC6553][RFCXXXX]
Figure 10: Option Type in RPL Option. Figure 10: Option Type in RPL Option.
We propose to use DODAG Configuration Option Flags in the DODAG The DODAG Configuration Option Flags in the DODAG Configuration
Configuration option as follows: option is updated as follows:
+------------+-----------------+---------------+ +------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Bit number | Description | Reference | | Bit number | Description | Reference |
+------------+-----------------+---------------+ +------------+-----------------+---------------+
| 3 | RPI 0x23 enable | This document | | 3 | RPI 0x23 enable | This document |
+------------+-----------------+---------------+ +------------+-----------------+---------------+
Figure 11: DODAG Configuration Option Flag to indicate the RPI-flag- Figure 11: DODAG Configuration Option Flag to indicate the RPI-flag-
day. day.
skipping to change at page 44, line 16 skipping to change at page 41, line 22
would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment where hostile would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment where hostile
nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN. nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN.
The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways
with an IPIP header to add the needed RH3 header. As such, the with an IPIP header to add the needed RH3 header. As such, the
attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it
reaches the end host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host SHOULD reaches the end host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host SHOULD
be suspicious about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have be suspicious about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have
not yet been processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header. not yet been processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header.
In addition, the LLN will likely use [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] In addition, the LLN will likely use [RFC8183] to compress the IPIP
to compress the IPIP and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the RPL-root will see
RPL-root will see the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the packet if the RH3
packet if the RH3 header has not been completely consumed. A header has not been completely consumed. A consumed (inert) RH3
consumed (inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows header could be present in a packet that flows from one LLN, crosses
from one LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per the discussion in this
the discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be document, such headers do not need to be removed. However, there is
removed. However, there is no case described in this document where no case described in this document where an RH3 is inserted in a non-
an RH3 is inserted in a non-storing network on traffic that is storing network on traffic that is leaving the LLN, but this document
leaving the LLN, but this document SHOULD NOT preclude such a future SHOULD NOT preclude such a future innovation. It should just be
innovation. It should just be noted that an incoming RH3 must be noted that an incoming RH3 must be fully consumed, or very carefully
fully consumed, or very carefully inspected. inspected.
The RPI header, if permitted to enter the LLN, could be used by an The RPI header, if permitted to enter the LLN, could be used by an
attacker to change the priority of a packet by selecting a different attacker to change the priority of a packet by selecting a different
RPL instanceID, perhaps one with a higher energy cost, for instance. RPL instanceID, perhaps one with a higher energy cost, for instance.
It could also be that not all nodes are reachable in an LLN using the It could also be that not all nodes are reachable in an LLN using the
default instanceID, but a change of instanceID would permit an default instanceID, but a change of instanceID would permit an
attacker to bypass such filtering. Like the RH3, an RPI header is to attacker to bypass such filtering. Like the RH3, an RPI header is to
be inserted by the RPL root on traffic entering the LLN by first be inserted by the RPL root on traffic entering the LLN by first
inserting an IPIP header. The attacker's RPI header therefore will inserting an IPIP header. The attacker's RPI header therefore will
not be seen by the network. Upon reaching the destination node the not be seen by the network. Upon reaching the destination node the
skipping to change at page 45, line 19 skipping to change at page 42, line 23
The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and
comments of (alphabetical order): Robert Cragie, Simon Duquennoy, comments of (alphabetical order): Robert Cragie, Simon Duquennoy,
Ralph Droms, Cenk Guendogan, C. M. Heard, Rahul Jadhav, Matthias Ralph Droms, Cenk Guendogan, C. M. Heard, Rahul Jadhav, Matthias
Kovatsch, Peter van der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana and Thomas Watteyne. Kovatsch, Peter van der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana and Thomas Watteyne.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-13 (work
in progress), May 2017.
[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>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
skipping to change at page 46, line 33 skipping to change at page 43, line 33
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>. April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[DDOS-KREBS] [DDOS-KREBS]
Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by
>145k hacked cameras", September 2016, >145k hacked cameras", September 2016,
<http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k- <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-
cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/>. cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/>.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo- Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-
backbone-router-04 (work in progress), July 2017. backbone-router-04 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis]
Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[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-12 (work of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-12 (work
in progress), August 2017. in progress), August 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]
Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf- Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf-
6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress), 6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress),
February 2017. February 2017.
skipping to change at page 47, line 26 skipping to change at page 44, line 36
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason, Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,
S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping- Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
keyinfra-08 (work in progress), October 2017. keyinfra-08 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection] [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]
Thubert, P. and J. Pylakutty, "Root initiated routing Thubert, P. and J. Pylakutty, "Root initiated routing
state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-02 (work in state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-02 (work in
progress), September 2017. progress), September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch]
Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing-
dispatch-05 (work in progress), October 2016.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
skipping to change at page 48, line 9 skipping to change at page 45, line 15
[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
[RFC8183] Austein, R., "An Out-of-Band Setup Protocol for Resource
Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Production Services",
RFC 8183, DOI 10.17487/RFC8183, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8183>.
[Second6TischPlugtest] [Second6TischPlugtest]
"2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", <http://www.ietf.org/mail- "2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/6tisch/current/pdfgDMQcdCkRz.pdf>. archive/web/6tisch/current/pdfgDMQcdCkRz.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Maria Ines Robles Maria Ines Robles
Ericsson Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11 Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420 Jorvas 02420
 End of changes. 128 change blocks. 
490 lines changed or deleted 433 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/