Generic Address Assignment Option for 6LowPAN Neighbor Discovery
draft-ietf-6lo-nd-gaao-01
Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (6lo WG) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Luigi Iannone , Zhe Lou , Adnan Rashid | ||
Last updated | 2024-11-25 | ||
Replaces | draft-iannone-6lo-nd-gaao | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Associated WG milestone |
|
||
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-6lo-nd-gaao-01
6lo Working Group L. Iannone Internet-Draft D. Lou Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Expires: 29 May 2025 A. Rashid Politecnico di Bari 25 November 2024 Generic Address Assignment Option for 6LowPAN Neighbor Discovery draft-ietf-6lo-nd-gaao-01 Abstract This document specifies a new extension to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery in Low Power and Lossy Networks, enabling a node to request to be assigned an address or a prefix from neighbor routers. Such mechanism allows to algorithmically assign addresses and prefixes to nodes in a 6LowPAN deployment. 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 https://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 29 May 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Algorithmically Assigned Addresses and Prefixes . . . . . . . 5 6. Generic Address Assignment Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Messages Sequence and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Request Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Optional Confirmation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.3. Message exchange optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. GAAO Error Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Signaling GAAO Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. IPv6 ND Option Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.2. 6LoWPAN Capability Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.3. GAAO Error code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.4. Address Assignment Function Registry . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have adapted the design of Internet protocols to more constrained environments, by taking into consideration of energy saving, limited memory capacity, and duty cycling of the LLN devices, as well as low-power lossy transmissions. Since the wireless interface is a major energy drain, protocols aiming at being deployed over LLN must be designed in such a way to reduce as much as possible transmissions, allowing to turn off the radio interface or put the interface or the whole node in the sleeping mode. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery has been also adapted to the LLN environment in [RFC6775], later updated by [RFC8505], [RFC8929], and [RFC9010]. In particular, interface address assignment relies on address auto- configuration [RFC4862], since the use of Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP [RFC8415]) is not adapted to LLN deployments. Hence, mechanisms to register these self-generated addresses have been designed ([RFC6775], [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration], [RFC8505], [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration]). Recent use cases show, however, that there are some advantages in assigning addresses in an algorithmically managed way. In particular, in some scenarios, routing and forwarding can be simplified ([RFC9453], [I-D.ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing], [SHENOY21], [BLESS22], [RIDOUX05]), hence reducing the power consumption and memory footprint. Algorithmic address assignment has its own pros and cons, as well as deployment requirements. However, they have the common benefit of being easily distributed. In other words, it is not necessary to have a centralized approach, like DHCP, rather a node can obtain an address generated by one of its neighbors who simply runs an algorithm. This situation highlights an existing gap that this document tries to fill: 6LowPAN nodes have no means to directly request an address (or address prefix) from routers that are their direct neighbors. Currently, either auto-configuration is used, or DHCP has to be deployed. The former is energy efficient, but makes it hard to implement solutions like [I-D.ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing], [SHENOY21], [BLESS22], and [RIDOUX05]. The latter, on the opposite, allows the use of sophisticated assignment algorithms, but remains inefficient from an energy consumption viewpoint. This document proposes a new Neighbor Discovery Option, namely the Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO), in order for a node to issue an address or prefix request to neighboring routers. This new GAA Option complements the Extended Address Registration Option, defined in [RFC8505], further extended in [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration]. 2. Requirements Notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 3. Terminology This document assumes familiarity with the terminology defined in [RFC6775] and [RFC8505]. In particular for the following acronyms: 6CIO: Capability Indication Option 6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router 6LN: 6LoWPAN Node 6LoWPAN: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network 6LR: 6LoWPAN Router ARO: Address Registration Option EARO: Extended Address Registration Option LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network NA: Neighbor Advertisement ND: Neighbor Discovery NS: Neighbor Solicitation RA: Router Advertisement RS: Router Solicitation SLLAO: Source Link-Layer Address Option TLLAO: Target Link-Layer Address Option 4. Definition of Terms Address Assignment Function (AAF): The Address Assignment Function (AAF) is an implementation of the algorithm used by 6LRs to assign an address/prefix to requesting nodes. In order to avoid addressing issues, only one single AAF is used in a deployment. GAAO: Generic Address Assignment Option defined in the present document ({Sec:GAAO}). Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 5. Algorithmically Assigned Addresses and Prefixes The IPv6 address assignment model inside a local domain is based on randomly assigned Interface IDentifier (IID), either done in a centralized way using DHCP, which can guarantee no address collision, or by decentralized State-Less Address Auto-Configuration (SLAAC [RFC4862]), which needs additional mechanisms to ensure the uniqueness of addresses. However, there is a third approach for address assignment, which is distributed and collision-free: algorithmically generated addresses (e.g., [SHENOY21], [BLESS22], [RIDOUX05], [ERIKSSON04]). The main idea is to use an Address Assignment Function (AAF) to assign addresses and prefixes to nodes joining a network. All nodes, 6LNs, 6LRs, and 6LBRs, MUST use the same AAF in the same network instance. Each node acquiring an address firstly needs to select a neighbor 6LR by choosing among the nodes that replied with a Router Advertisement (RA) after an initial Router Solicitation (RS), as defined in [RFC6775]. Then, the node explicitly requests an address (or prefix) to the selected 6LR. Depending on the underlying technology and algorithm used, the node may optionally confirm its usage. The high-level sequence of actions is depicted in Figure 1. 6LN 6LR | | | 1. Address Request | \ |------------------------>| | | | > Request Phase | 2. Address Offer | | |<------------------------| / | | | 3. Address Acceptation | \ |------------------------>| | | | > Optional Confirmation Phase | 4. Address Confirmation | | |<------------------------| / Figure 1: Address/Prefix assignment sequence. The optional confirmation phase (namely step 3 and 4), is implemented by using the address registration procedure defined in [RFC8505], {!I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration}, or {I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix- registration}. Basically, it uses an EARO and SLLAO messages to register an address, which in this case is not a self-generated address. However, in order to issue the initial request, namely steps 1 and 2, a new Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO) is required and proposed, since no existing mechanism can be readily used for this purpose. In the remaining of this document, the format Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 of this option is firstly defined (Section 6), followed by a revised Address/Prefix assignment messages sequence and processing (Section 7). 6. Generic Address Assignment Option In order for a node to request the assignment of an address or prefix, the Generic Address Assignment Option (GAAO) message is used. The format of the GAAO message is shown in Figure 2. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Status/PfxLen | Opaque | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |C| Reserved | AAF | Assignment Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ... Registration Ownership Verifier (ROVR) ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Address/Prefix | | (128 bits) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Generic Address Assignment Option format. Generic Address Assignment Option Fields: Type: TBD Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option in units of 8 bytes. This field is set to 1 plus the size of the ROVR field when the option is used in NS messages. It is augmented by 2 (16 bytes) when this option is used in NA messages because the assigned address/prefix is appended to the option. Status/PfxLen: 8-bits unsigned integer. This field has two purposes. It indicates the Prefix Length of the assigned address if the assignment is successful. On success, the returned GAAO message will have 16 bytes of the assigned address/prefix appended to it, which means that the Length field will increased by 2 (cf. Length field). In case of failure, when no address/prefix is returned, this field indicates an error code (See table 1 in [RFC8505] and Section 8 for error codes). In this case, the returned GAAO message will not have any address/prefix appended to Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 it and the Length field has not been increased. A returning GAA Option with the same length as the one sent indicates error condition, whose code is indicated in this field. This field MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on reception in NS messages. Opaque: As defined in [RFC8505], where values different from 0 are interpreted as an abstract index that is used to decide from which routing topology the address is expected to be assigned. C: Confirmation requested. It MUST be initialized to 0 by in NS messages by the requester and MUST be ignored by the receiver. The 6LR replying to the request with an NA message MAY set this bit to indicate that it requests a confirmation that the address/ prefix is accepted and will be used. When the requester receives an NA message with this bit set, it MUST explicitly register the received address/prefix to the same 6LR using the procedures defined in [RFC8505], [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration], and [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration], according to the type of the assigned address/prefix. Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. Address Assignment Function(AAF): 4-bits unsigned integer. Describe the Address Assignment Function (AAF), i.e. the algorithm, used to assign the address/prefix. 0 is a special value indicating that the field is not used. On request in an NS message, this field MAY be set to 0 to indicate there is no preference on how the address is assigned. If different from 0 it means that it is requested to use a specific known AAF to assign the address/prefix (see Section 8). Section 10.4 describes possible values of this field. Assignment Lifetime: 16-bit unsigned integer, expressed in minutes. In an NS message, the field expresses the minimum desired lifetime. It MAY be set to zero in the NS message, indicating no particular desired lifetime. In NA messages it expresses the granted maximum lifetime. ROVR: As defined in [RFC8505]. Address/Prefix: 128 bits address or prefix returned in a GAA Option in an NA message. This field is not present in GAAO requests in NS messages and in NA messages when an error occurs. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 7. Messages Sequence and Processing When a node bootstraps, it typically does multicast a Routing Solicitation (RS) and receives one or more unicast Routing Advertisements (RA) messages from neighbor 6LRs. The node can choose one or more 6LRs from which to request address(es) or prefix(es). A node can perform an address request at any time, not necessarily at boot time using Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. 7.1. Request Phase When the node requests an address, the node will go through the following steps: 1. The node will issue an NS message with the GAA Option to request an address assignment. This initial GAA Option has a length equal to ROVR's length as a multiple of 8 bytes plus one (no address appended), Status/PfxLen set to 0. Opaque, as well as the F-bit and I-bits will be set according to local configuration. The C-bit is set to zero. The P-bits are set according to the type of address it is requesting. The AAF is set to zero if the node has no preference for the assignment algorithm, otherwise it is set to the selected AAF code. The lifetime field is set to the minimum desired lifetime, or zero otherwise. 2. Assuming no errors occur, the node will receive an NA message with a GAA Option with a length increased by two, compared to the corresponding NS message, because of the presence of the address/ prefix field. All fields have been copied back except for: * Pfxlen: now indicating the length of the prefix. * C: The C bit is set if the 6LR requests a confirmation via a registration procedure. * AAF: It is the algorithm, used to assign the address/prefix. If the node is a 6LR it will use the same AAF to generate addresses/prefixes to requesting neighbor nodes. * Assignment lifetime: The maximum lifetime of the assigned address/prefix. The message sequence is depicted in Figure 3. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 6LN 6LR | | | NS(GAAO) | |---------------------->| | | | NA(GAAO) | |<----------------------| | | Figure 3: Address/Prefix assignment with GAAO message sequence and no confirmation request. 7.2. Optional Confirmation Phase Depending on the algorithm in use and the underlying technology the address assignment procedure terminates after these two messages. This may be sufficient for instance in deployments where the link layer offers reliable packet delivery. The use of this option is done by configuration. Documents defining Address Allocation Function MUST explicitly state whether this phase remains optional or is mandatory due to factors specific to the proposed algorithm. If the C bit is set, to confirm the acceptance and usage of the proposed address/prefix received in the NA message, the 6LN MUST register with the obtained address by following the procedures in [RFC8505], [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration], or [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration] depending on the type of address. In this case, the complete sequence of actions is depicted in Figure 4. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 6LN 6LR | | | NS(GAAO) | |---------------------->| | | | NA(GAAO) | |<----------------------| | | | NS(EARO+TLLAO) | |---------------------->| | | ... Procedure According to [RFC8505], [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration], or [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration] depending on the type of address. ... | | | NA(EARO+TLLAO) | |<----------------------| Figure 4: Address/Prefix assignment with GAAO message sequence. The specifications in [RFC8505], [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration], and [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration], define how nodes can keep address/prefix registering state so to maintain addressing in case of reboot. When needed, in order to use this feature with GAAO, after reboot the optional confirmation phase MUST be used to perform an explicit registration. However, when using GAAO, and when preforming the re-registering, if a "Registration Refresh Request" or "Invalid Registration" status value is returned, the node MUST restart from the top with the initial request phase. 7.3. Message exchange optimization The request of a prefix/address uses a NS/NA transaction likewise prefix/address registration. In order to reduce the number fo transactions the GAA Option MAY be used at the same time like the EARO+SLLAO options. In other words the GAA Option can be picky- bagged on other transactions. For instance, it can be picky-bagged in an link-layer address registration, as shown in Figure 5. In this case the returning NA will contain two addresses, one in the TLLA Option, namely the registered link-layer-address, and one directly appended in the GAA Option, namely the offered prefix/address. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 6LN 6LR | | | NS(EARO+TLLAO+GAAO) | |---------------------->| | | | NA(EARO+TLLAO+GAAO) | |<----------------------| | | Figure 5: Message sequence when GAA Option is picky-bagged on a link-layer registration transaction. When prefix/address request is performed at boot time, the GAAO request MAY be appended as an option of the first RS message, implicitly signaling that the node sending the RS message supports the specifications in the present document. In the same way, the responding routers that support this document send back a prefix/ address offer in a GAA Option appended to the returning RA message, as depicted in Figure 6. 6LN 6LR | | | RS(SLLAO+GAAO) | |---------------------->| | | | RA(SLLAO+GAAO) | |<----------------------| | | Figure 6: Message sequence when GAA Option is used with the RS/RA transaction. 6LRs that do not support GAAO will simply ignore the option, and the corresponding RA, which will not include the GAA Option, implicitly signaling that the feature is not supported. 8. GAAO Error Conditions The GAA Option uses error codes defined in [RFC6775] and [RFC8505], and revised in [RFC9010]. This specification introduces a new status code when the AAF in the GAA Option in an NS message is not supported by 6LR, as follows (see also Section 10): AAF Not Supported: The AAF in the GAA Option in the NS message is not supported by 6LR that received the message. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 This status MUST be used when a node requesting an address/prefix did put an AAF value, in the corresponding field, which is not supported by the 6LR receiving the request. When the node receives this status back it can perform one of the following actions: * Re-issue the same request without specifying an AAF. Meaning set the AAF Field to 0. * Re-issue the same request with a different AAF. * Do nothing. The action to be used is selected by configuration. 9. Signaling GAAO Support This specification defines five new capability bits for use in the 6CIO as defined by [RFC7400] ("6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)"), for use in IPv6 ND messages. A 6LowPAN node that supports this specification MUST set the M flag. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length = 1 | Reserved |M|F|X|A|D|L|B|P|E|G| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: New GAAO Capability Bit in the 6CIO. M: The node supports managed addresses via the Generic Address Assignment Capability. 10. IANA Considerations This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the GAAO specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. 10.1. IPv6 ND Option Types IANA is requested to make an addition to the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry under the heading "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" as indicated in Table 1: Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 +================+===================================+===========+ | Type | Description | Reference | +================+===================================+===========+ | 42 (Suggested) | Generic Address Assignment Option | [This | | | | Document] | +----------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ Table 1: New Generic Address Assignment Option. 10.2. 6LoWPAN Capability Bits IANA is requested to make an addition to the "6LoWPAN Capability Bits" registry under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" as indicated in Table 2: +================+============================+===========+ | Bit | Description | Reference | +================+============================+===========+ | 16 (Suggested) | Generic Address Assignment | [This | | | Capability (M) Flag | Document] | +----------------+----------------------------+-----------+ Table 2: New 6LoWPAN Capability Bit. 10.3. GAAO Error code IANA is requested to make an addition to the "Address Registration Option Status Values" registry under the registry group "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" as indicated in Table 3: +================+===================+=================+ | Value | Description | Reference | +================+===================+=================+ | 13 (Suggested) | AAF Not Supported | [This Document] | +----------------+-------------------+-----------------+ Table 3: New address registration option value. 10.4. Address Assignment Function Registry IANA is asked to create a registry group named "Generic Address Assignment Option". Such registry group should be populated with a one-octet registry named "Address Assignment Function" and used to identify the used AAF used. The registry is populated as shown in Table 4: Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 +=========+================================+===========+ | Value | AAF Name | Reference | +=========+================================+===========+ | 0x0 | No AAF. This can be used only | [This | | | in NS message to indicate that | Document] | | | no specific AAF is demanded. | | +---------+--------------------------------+-----------+ | 0x1-0xE | Un-assigned | | +---------+--------------------------------+-----------+ | 0xF | Experimental Use. Used for | [This | | | experimental purposes during | Document] | | | implementation of new AAFs. | | +---------+--------------------------------+-----------+ Table 4: Allocation Function sub-registry Values can be assigned by IANA on a "First Come, First Served" basis according to [RFC8126]. 11. Security Considerations This document extends [RFC8505], which already extended [RFC6775], as such the security considerations of both documents apply to this specification. In particular, the link layer SHOULD provide sufficient protection to prevent potential attacks. Recommendations listed in Section 7 of [RFC8505] SHOULD be applied as well to this specification. Depending on the Assignment Function in use, the number of available addresses may encounter limitations. A rouge node may leverage on this knowledge to carry out address exhaustion attacks by impersonating different nodes and performing multiple requests. Acknowledgements This document received many comments and help from community people. The authors would like to thank all of them. References Normative References [I-D.ietf-6lo-multicast-registration] Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Multicast and Anycast Address Listener Subscription", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-19, 16 May 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-19>. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 [I-D.ietf-6lo-prefix-registration] Thubert, P., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Registration", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-06, 9 November 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo- prefix-registration-06>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>. [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4862>. [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6775>. [RFC7400] Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7400, DOI 10.17487/RFC7400, November 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7400>. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>. [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8505>. [RFC9010] Thubert, P., Ed. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC9010, April 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9010>. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 Informative References [BLESS22] Bless, R., Zitterbart, M., Despotovic, Z., and A. Hecker, "KIRA: Distributed Scalable ID-based Routing with Fast Forwarding", 2022 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) pp. 1-9, DOI 10.23919/ifipnetworking55013.2022.9829816, June 2022, <https://doi.org/10.23919/ ifipnetworking55013.2022.9829816>. [ERIKSSON04] Eriksson, J., Faloutsos, M., and S. Krishnamurthy, "Scalable ad hoc routing: the case for dynamic addressing", IEEE INFOCOM 2004 vol. 2, pp. 1108-1119, DOI 10.1109/infcom.2004.1356997, February 2005, <https://doi.org/10.1109/infcom.2004.1356997>. [I-D.ietf-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing] Iannone, L., Li, G., Lou, Z., Liu, P., Long, R., Makhijani, K., and P. Thubert, "Path-Aware Semantic Addressing (PASA) for Low power and Lossy Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6lo-path-aware- semantic-addressing-08, 18 September 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo- path-aware-semantic-addressing-08>. [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8415>. [RFC8929] Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10.17487/RFC8929, November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8929>. [RFC9453] Hong, Y., Gomez, C., Choi, Y., Sangi, A., and S. Chakrabarti, "Applicability and Use Cases for IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)", RFC 9453, DOI 10.17487/RFC9453, September 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9453>. [RIDOUX05] Ridoux, J., Fladenmuller, A., Viniotis, Y., and K. Salamatian, "Trellis-Based Virtual Regular Addressing Structures in Self-organized Networks", Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp. 511-522, DOI 10.1007/11422778_41, 2005, <https://doi.org/10.1007/11422778_41>. Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft GAAO November 2024 [SHENOY21] Shenoy, N., Chandraiah, S., and P. Willis, "A Structured Approach to Routing in the Internet", 2021 IEEE 22nd International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR) pp. 1-6, DOI 10.1109/hpsr52026.2021.9481818, June 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1109/hpsr52026.2021.9481818>. Authors' Addresses Luigi Iannone Huawei Technologies France S.A.S.U. 18, Quai du Point du Jour 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt France Email: luigi.iannone@huawei.com David Lou Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH Riesstrasse 25 80992 Munich Germany Email: zhe.lou@huawei.com Adnan Rashid Politecnico di Bari Via Edoardo Orabona 4 70126 Bari Italy Email: adnan.rashid@poliba.it Iannone, et al. Expires 29 May 2025 [Page 17]