Mode of Operation extension
draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01
ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Tech
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: December 7, 2020 Cisco
M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
June 5, 2020
Mode of Operation extension
draft-ietf-roll-mopex-01
Abstract
RPL allows different mode of operations which allows nodes to have a
consensus on the basic primitives that must be supported to join the
network. The MOP field in [RFC6550] is of 3 bits and is fast
depleting. This document extends the MOP for future use.
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 December 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 December 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MOP extension June 2020
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
2. Requirements for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Extended MOP Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Handling MOPex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Use of values 0-6 in the MOPex option . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Extending RPL Control Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Mode of operation: MOPex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. New options: MOPex and Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.3. New Registry for Extended-MOP-value . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
scheme. The protocol creates a DAG-like structure which operates
with a given "Mode of Operation" (MOP) determining the minimal and
mandatory set of primitives to be supported by all the participating
nodes.
MOP as per [RFC6550] is a 3-bit value carried in DIO messages and is
specific to the RPL Instance. The receipient of the DIO message can
join the specified network as a router only when it can support the
primitives as required by the mode of operation value. For example,
in case of MOP=3 (Storing MOP with multicast support) the nodes can
join the network as routers only when they can handle the DAO
advertisements from the peers and manage routing tables. The 3-bit
value is already exhausted and requires replenishment. This document
introduces a mechanism to extend mode of operation values.
This document further extends the RPL Control Option syntax to handle
generic flags. The primary aim of these flags is to define the
behaviour of a node not supporting the given control type. If a node
does not support a given RPL Control Option, there are three
Show full document text