Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (roll WG)
Last updated 2018-07-19
Replaces draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. Thubert
Expires: January 20, 2019                                          Cisco
                                                                R. Sahoo
                                                                  Z. Cao
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           July 19, 2018

                      Efficient Route Invalidation
                   draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-04

Abstract

   This document describes the problems associated with the use of No-
   Path DAO messaging in RPL and signaling changes to improve route
   invalidation efficiency.

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 January 20, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Jadhav, et al.          Expires January 20, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation             July 2018

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Current No-Path DAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Cases when No-Path DAO may be used  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Why No-Path DAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Problems with current         No-Path DAO messaging . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . .   5
     2.2.  Invalidate routes to dependent nodes of the switching
           node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Route downtime caused by asynchronous operation of
           NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Requirements for the No-Path DAO Optimization . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Req#1: Tolerant to link failures to the previous
           parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent
           switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Req#3: No impact on traffic while NPDAO operation in
           progress  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Change in RPL route invalidation semantics  . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  DAO message format changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  Secure DCO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.3.  Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.4.  Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK)   10
       4.3.5.  Secure DCO-ACK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.1.  Dependent Nodes invalidation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.2.  NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
Show full document text