Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (roll WG)
Last updated 2018-11-05 (latest revision 2018-10-14)
Replaces draft-jadhav-roll-efficient-npdao
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Peter Van der Stok
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-11-03)
IESG IESG state Publication Requested
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org>
ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. Thubert
Expires: April 17, 2019                                            Cisco
                                                                R. Sahoo
                                                                  Z. Cao
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        October 14, 2018

                      Efficient Route Invalidation
                   draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09

Abstract

   This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging
   used in RPL for route invalidation 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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation          October 2018

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Why NPDAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Problems with current         NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . .   5
     2.2.  Invalidate routes of dependent nodes  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Possible route downtime caused by async operation of
           NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Req#1: Remove messaging dependency on link to the
           previous             parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent
           switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic    6
   4.  Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Change in RPL route invalidation semantics  . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Transit Information Option changes  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       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
       4.4.3.  DCO with multiple preferred parents . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Example Messaging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.1.  Example DCO Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.2.  Example DCO Messaging with multiple preferred parents . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text