RPL Observations
draft-rahul-roll-rpl-observations-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-02-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Sahoo
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Y. Wu
Expires: August 8, 2018                                           Huawei
                                                        February 4, 2018

                            RPL Observations
                  draft-rahul-roll-rpl-observations-00

Abstract

   This document describes RPL protocol design issues, various
   observations and possible consequences of the design and
   implementation choices.  Also mentioned are implementation notes for
   the developers to be used in specific contexts.

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 August 8, 2018.

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

Jadhav, et al.           Expires August 8, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              RPL Observations               February 2018

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Managing persistent variables across node reboots . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Persistent storage and RPL state information  . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Lollipop Counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  RPL State variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.3.1.  DODAG Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.3.2.  DTSN field in DIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.3.3.  PathSequence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  State variables update frequency  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.5.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  Implementation Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  DTSN increment in storing MOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  DAO retransmission and use of DAO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Handling resource unavailability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Traffic Types observations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  RPL under-specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector routing scheme
   designed for LLNs (Low Power and Lossy Networks).  RPL enables the
   network to be formed as a DODAG and supports storing mode and non-
   storing mode of operations.  Non-storing mode allows reduced memory
   resource usage on the nodes by allowing non-BR nodes to operate
   without managing a routing table and involves use of source routing
   by the 6LBR to direct the traffic along a specific path.  In storing
   mode of operation intermediate routers maintain routing tables.

   This work aims to highlight various issues with RPL which makes it
   difficult to handle certain scenarios.  This work will highlight such
   issues in context to RPL's mode of operations (storing versus non-
   storing).  There are cases where RPL does not provide clear rules and
Show full document text