draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-20.txt   draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-21.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: August 2, 2018 P. Thubert Expires: August 14, 2018 P. Thubert
Cisco Cisco
January 29, 2018 February 10, 2018
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-20 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-21
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. This document
document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type updates RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type.
and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change. Additionally, this document updates RFC 6550 to indicate about this
change and updates RFC8138 as well to consider the new Option Type
when RPL Option is decompressed.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 August 2, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 6, line 10 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
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 ([RFC8200] Section 4.2) if option and continue processing the header ([RFC8200] Section 4.2) if
it doesn't recognize the option type, and the third bit continues to it doesn't recognize the option type, and the third bit continues to
be set to indicate that the Option Data may change en route. The be set to indicate that the Option Data may change en route. The
remaining bits serve as the option type and remain as 0x3. This remaining bits serve as the option type and remain as 0x3. This
ensures that a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that ensures that a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that
leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the
[RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI. [RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI.
This is a significant update to [RFC6553]. This is a significant update to [RFC6553]. [RFCXXXX] represents this
document.
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: Revised 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
skipping to change at page 12, line 23 skipping to change at page 12, line 23
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 is consistent with the rule that a Header cannot be This document is consistent with the rule that a Header cannot be
inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being
routed. This is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as routed. This is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as
outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except outlined in [RFC8200]. Extensions may not be added or removed except
by the sender or the receiver. by the sender or the receiver.
However, unlike [RFC6553], the Hop-by-Hop Option Header used for the However, unlike [RFC6553], the Hop-by-Hop Option Header used for the
RPI artifact has the first two bits set to '00'. This means that the RPI artifact has the first two bits set to '00'. This means that the
RPI artifact will be ignored when received by a host or router that RPI artifact will be ignored when received by a host or router that
does not understand that option ( Section 4.2 [RFC8200]). 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
skipping to change at page 28, line 42 skipping to change at page 28, line 42
For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node B For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node 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, it is modified at each intermediate 6LR In 6LBR the RH3 is added, it is modified at each intermediate 6LR
(6LR_1 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n), (6LR_1 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n),
but left 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 RFC8200), 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 may optionally address the IP-in-IP header to the last root, the 6LBR may optionally address the IP-in-IP header to the last
6LR, such that it is removed prior to the IPv6 node. 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 | -- | -- |
skipping to change at page 40, line 10 skipping to change at page 40, line 10
|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 |
+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
Figure 9: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI). Figure 9: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI).
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document updates the registration made in [RFC6553] Destination This document updates the registration made in [RFC6553] Destination
Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23. Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23.
[RFCXXXX] represents this document.
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.
The DODAG Configuration Option Flags in the DODAG Configuration The DODAG Configuration Option Flags in the DODAG Configuration
option is updated as follows: option is updated as follows:
skipping to change at page 43, line 28 skipping to change at page 43, line 33
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/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
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>. May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec [RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec
skipping to change at page 44, line 22 skipping to change at page 44, line 22
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<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 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
skipping to change at page 45, line 7 skipping to change at page 44, line 46
>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-05 (work in progress), January 2018. backbone-router-05 (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis] [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis]
Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02 (work in Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-03 (work in
progress), October 2017. progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-13 (work
in progress), November 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.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic
Control Plane (ACP)", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control- Control Plane (ACP)", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-
plane-13 (work in progress), December 2017. plane-13 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
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-09 (work in progress), October 2017. keyinfra-09 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]
Thubert, P. and J. Pylakutty, "Root initiated routing
state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-02 (work in
progress), September 2017.
[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 46, line 15 skipping to change at page 45, line 43
[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>.
[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
[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. 14 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 23 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/