forked from ietf-roll/useofrplinfo
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathroll-useofrplinfo.txt
504 lines (311 loc) · 14.5 KB
/
roll-useofrplinfo.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
ROLL Working Group M. Robles
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Richardson
Expires: January 5, 2016 Sandelman
July 4, 2015
When to use RFC 6553, 6554
draft-wg-roll-caseofuserplinfo-00
Abstract
This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and
IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help
defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN
environments.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Example flow from leaf to root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Example flow from leaf to Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Example flow from leaf to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Traditional storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Traditional non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. P2P non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Example flow from Internet to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Example flow from root to leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Non-storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] defines RPL Option to transmit routing information.
RFC 6553 [RFC6553] defines how to transmit in a Hop-By-Hop Option RPL
Information,such as information to avoid and detect loops. RFC 6554
[RFC6554] defines the use of Extension header for Source Routing.
Several discussions in ML took place focusing in the definition how
to compress RPL Information in constrained environments, the
Conclusion was that there is a need to define how to use RFC 6553,
RFC6554 and tunneling (IP-in-IP) to be able to set the correct
environment to define the compression on these techniques. ROLL
Virtual Interim Meeting (2014) concluded that a document stating the
use of this Extension headers would be useful for further proccessing
on it, e.g. to compress them.
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
2. Terminology and Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Terminology defined in [RFC7102]
3. sample/reference topology
In a typical topology we found 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), 6lR
(6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf connected in a DODAG
(Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph) Between these entities
messages such as DIS, DIO and DAO are transmitted. RPL defines the
RPL Control message as an ICMPv6 information message with a Type of
155. RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: Storing, it is
fully stateful or Non-Storing it is fully source routed. Any given
RPL Instance is either storing or non-storing.
+--------------+
| Upper Layers |
| |
+--------------+
| RPL |
| |
+--------------+
| ICMPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN |
| |
+--------------+
| PHY-MAC |
| |
+--------------+
Figure 1: RPL Stack
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
+----+--+
|DODAG |
+---------+Root +----------+
| |6LBR | |
| +----+--+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+
|6LR | | | | |
+-----+ | | | | |
| | | | | | +------+
| +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+
|Leaf | | | | | | | | |
|6LN | | | | | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+
Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology
In different scenarios the use of RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and tunneling
can take place:
-Flow from leaf to root
-Flow from leaf to Internet
-Flow from leaf to leaf
-Flow from Internet to leaf
-Flow from leaf to root
4. Example flow from leaf to root
A leaf node generates DAO and DIS messages and in general does not
accept them. Additionally, this kind of nodes accepts DIO messages,
but in general do not generate them. (In inconsistency A leaf node
generates DIO with infinite rank, to fix it).
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
4.1. Non-storing
In non-storing in this case the leaf node uses Hop-By-Hop option (RFC
6553) to indicate the routing information to send messages to the
DODAG root, this message is going to be analyzed in each node until
arrive the DODAG root.
RFC 6554 was created to strictly send information between RPL routers
in the same RPL routing domain. How it would be in 6554?
TBD: Tunneling is necessary in case that there is information to send
outside RPL Domain and other cases?
+------+
| |
| 6LBR |
| |
+---+--+
|
| LoWPAN_HC
| Route= 6LN-6LR-6LBR
^ |
| +---+-+
| | |
| | 6LR |
| | |
| +--+--+
| | LoWPAN_HC
| | Route= 6LN-6LR-6LBR
| |
+ |
+--+--+
| 6LN |
| |
| |
+-----+
Figure 3: From leaf to Root - Non-Storing Mode
4.2. Storing
IP6 6553{X,Y] ?ipip payload. In storing mode is suitable the use of
RFC 6553 to send RPL Information through HBH field checking the
routing table to find out where to send the message. It may include
IP-in-IP encapsulation to transmit information not related with the
RPL domain.
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
+------+
| |
| 6LBR |
| |
+---+--+
|
| LoWPAN_HC
| 0x63|HBH Data
^ |
| +---+-+
| | |
| | 6LR | 6LR check in routing table
| | |
| +--+--+
| | LoWPAN_HC
| | 0x63|HBH Data
| |
+ |
+--+--+
| 6LN |
| |
| |
+-----+
Figure 4: From leaf to Root - Storing Mode
5. Example flow from leaf to Internet
5.1. Non-storing
In this case the IP-in-IP encapsulation should take place to send
information not related to the RPL domain inside of the RPL domain.
RPL information from RFC 6553 should not go out to Internet. The
router sould take this information out before send the packet to
Internet. The HBH Option is going to be analyzed in each node to the
root.
Related to RFC 6554 the Source Header route is added and removed by
DODAG root. However, RFC 6554 was created to strictly send
information between RPL routers in the same RPL routing domain. How
it would be in 6554?
5.2. Storing
In storing the information of RFC 6553 should take away by DODAG root
before go to Internet.
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
6. Example flow from leaf to leaf
can leafs insert appropriate headers, without ipip? In [RFC6550] RPL
allows a simple one-hop P2P optimization for both storing and non-
storing networks. A node may send a P2P packet destined to a one-hop
neighbor direclty to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550].
6.1. Traditional storing
The route go through an ancestor that knows the route to the
destination, using HBH [RFC6553] to carry RPL Information.
6.2. Traditional non-storing
The route go through the DODAG root, using source routing [RFC6554].
6.3. P2P non-storing
(p2p storing? I think it does not exist)
7. Example flow from Internet to leaf
A DODAG root do not add routing extension to incoming packets, it
instead uses tunneling.
7.1. Storing
DODAG root adds the HBH header [RFC6553] and send the packet downward
to the destination.
7.2. Non-storing
DODAG root is going to add the source route header [RFC6554]
8. Example flow from root to leaf
8.1. Storing
DODAG root adds the HBH header [RFC6553] and send the packet downward
to the destination.
8.2. Non-storing
DODAG root is going to add the source route header [RFC6554]
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
10. Security Considerations
TBD.
11. Acknowledgements
TBD
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, March
2012.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, March
2012.
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, January 2014.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-default-iids]
Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and S. LIU,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-04 (work in progress), June
2015.
[I-D.thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc]
Thubert, P. and C. Bormann, "A compression mechanism for
the RPL option", draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02 (work in
progress), October 2014.
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2015
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Robles M. Ines
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: [email protected]
Michael Richardson
Sandelman
Robles & Richardson Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 9]