When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-richardson-roll-useofrplinfo-2460bis-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ines Robles , Michael Richardson , Pascal Thubert | ||
| Last updated | 2016-07-18 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-richardson-roll-useofrplinfo-2460bis-00
ROLL Working Group M. Robles
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational M. Richardson
Expires: January 19, 2017 SSW
P. Thubert
Cisco
July 18, 2016
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-richardson-roll-useofrplinfo-2460bis-00
Abstract
This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document
enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which
to design efficient compression of these headers.
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 http://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 19, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 10
5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 11
5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 11
5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 12
5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 12
5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 13
5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 14
5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 15
5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 15
5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 17
6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 18
6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 19
6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 19
6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 20
6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 21
6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 21
6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 22
6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 23
6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 24
6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Observations about the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Non-Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
[RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553
[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6
Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the
routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route
Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a
RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode.
These various items are referred to as RPL artifacts, and they are
seen on all of the data-plane traffic that occurs in RPL routed
networks; they do not in general appear on the RPL control plane
traffic at all which is mostly hop-by-hop traffic (one exception
being DAO messages in non-storing mode).
It has become clear from attempts to do multi-vendor
interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above
artifacts as possible that not all implementors agree when artifacts
are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed.
An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover
if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that
discussion. This document should not be defining anything new, but
it may clarify what is correct and incorrect behaviour.
The related document A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH)
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] defines a method to compress RPL
Option information and Routing Header type 3 (RFC6554) and an
efficient IP-in-IP technique. Uses cases proposed for the
[Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH.
2. Terminology and Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN,
RPL, RPL Domain and ROLL.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
3. Sample/reference topology
A RPL network is composed of a 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), Backbone
Router (6BBR), 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf
logically organized in a DODAG structure (Destination Oriented
Directed Acyclic Graph).
RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6
[RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information
Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination
Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with
different Code values.
RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM),
it is fully stateful or an in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully
source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non-
storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non-
storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the
time of writing this document.
+--------------+
| Upper Layers |
| |
+--------------+
| RPL |
| |
+--------------+
| ICMPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN |
| |
+--------------+
| PHY-MAC |
| |
+--------------+
Figure 1: RPL Stack.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
+----+--+
| DODAG | node:01
+---------+ Root +----------+
| | 6LBR | |
| +----+--+ |
| | |
| | |
... ... ...
| | |
+-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+
|6LR | | | | |
+-----+ | | | | |
| | 11 | | 12 | | 13 +------+
| +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
+-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+
|Leaf | | | | | |Leaf| |Leaf |
| 6LN | | | | | | 6LN| | 6LN |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+
Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology.
The numbers in or above the nodes are there so that they may be
referenced in subsequent sections. In the figure 2, 6LN can be a
router or a host. The 6LN leaf marked as (21) and (25) are routers.
The leaf marked 6LN (24) is a device which does not speak RPL at all
(not-RPL-aware), but uses Router-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and
efficient-ND only to participate in the network [RFC6775]. In the
document this leaf (24) is mentioned as well as IPv6 node. The 6LBR
in the figure is the root of the Global DODAG.
This document is in part motivated by the work that is ongoing at the
6TiSCH working group. The 6TiSCH architecture
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] draft explains the network
architecture of a 6TiSCH network. This architecture is used for the
remainder of this document.
The scope of the 6TiSCH (IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e)
Architecture is a Backbone Link that federates multiple LLNs (mesh)
as a single IPv6 Multi-Link Subnet. Each LLN in the subnet is
anchored at a Backbone Router (6BBR). The Backbone Routers
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
interconnect the LLNs over the Backbone Link and emulate that the LLN
nodes are present on the Backbone thus creating a so-called: Multi-
Link Subnet. An LLN node can move freely from an LLN anchored at a
Backbone Router to another LLN anchored at the same or a different
Backbone Router inside the Multi-Link Subnet and conserve its
addresses.
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
|
+-----+
| | Border Router to the RPL domain
| | (may be a RPL virtual root)
+-----+
|
| Backbone
+-------------------+-------------------+
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone
| | router | | router | | router
+|---|+ +-|||-+ +-[_]-+
| | PCI-exp / | \ USB | Ethernet
( ) ( ) ( )( )( ) (6LBR == RPL DODAG root)
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o 6LR == RPL router) o o
o o o o o o o z
o o o o o o (6LoWPAN Host)
<----------------------- RPL Instances ------------------------>
Figure 3: RPL domain architecture
4. Use cases
In data plane context a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in-
IPv6 encapsulation is going to be analyzed for the following traffic
flows.
This version of the document assumes the changes in
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are passed.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
This document assumes the rule that a Header cannot be inserted or
removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This
is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in
[RFC2460] is that Extensions may not be added or removed except by
the sender or the receiver. (A revision to RFC2460 considered
changing this rule, but has kept it)
But, options in the Hop-by-Hop option which are marked with option
type 01 ([RFC2460] section 4.2 and [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]) SHOULD
be ignored when received by a host or router which does not
understand that option.
This means that in general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of
an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, even if it
has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as the RPI or [RFC6554]
SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3.
With abolition of one of these rules it means that the RPI Hop-by-Hop
option MAY be left in place even if the end host does host understand
it. This collapses many of the cases above (where it says "or")
An intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or
RPI Option) must encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP
header where the new header can be placed.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
This also means that a Header can only be removed by an intermediate
router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header, and in that
case, the whole encapsulating header must be removed - a replacement
may be added. Further, an intermediate router can only remove such
an outer header if that outer header has the router as the
destination!
Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified by routers on the path of
the packet without the need to add to remove an encapsulating header.
Both headers were designed with this modification in mind, and both
the RPL RH and the RPL option are marked mutable but recoverable, so
an IPsec AH security header can be applied across these headers, but
it may not secure all the values in those headers.
RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one
exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the
root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written,
so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about
which forwarding table to use. There may be cases (such as in
6tisch) where the instanceID may still be needed to pick an
appropriate priority or channel at each hop.
In tables, the term "RPL aware leaf" is has been shortened to "Raf",
and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been shortened to "~Raf" to make the
table fit in available space.
The earlier examples are more complete to make sure that the process
is clear, while later examples are more consise.
5. Storing mode
This table summarizes what headers are needed in the following
scenarios, and indicates the IP-in-IP header must be inserted on a
hop-by-hop basis, and when it can target the destination node
directly. There are three possible situations: hop-by-hop necessary
(indicated by "hop"), or destination address possible (indicated by
"dst"). In all cases hop by hop can be used. In cases where no IP-
in-IP header is needed, the column is left blank.
The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host indicated as 6LN.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+--------------+-------+-------+-----------+---------------+
| Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst |
+--------------+-------+-------+-----------+---------------+
| Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- |
| root to Raf | Yes | No | No | -- |
| root to ~Raf | Yes | No | Yes | hop |
| ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root |
| Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root |
| Int to Raf | Yes | No | Yes | raf |
| ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root |
| Int to ~Raf | Yes | No | Yes | hop |
| Raf to Raf | Yes | No | No | -- |
| Raf to ~Raf | Yes | No | Yes | hop |
| ~Raf to Raf | Yes | No | Yes | dst |
| ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | No | Yes | hop |
+--------------+-------+-------+-----------+---------------+
Table 1: Headers needed in Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP
encapsulation
5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information
instanceID and rank information.
As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does
not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages
from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf
node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may
issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS
messages.
In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information
instanceID and rank information.
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> 6LR,... --> root (6LBR)
As it was mentioned In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full-
fledge RPL routers, and are the RPL root node.
The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR which
decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up. When the packet
arrives at 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed.
No IP-in-IP header is required.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is
addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating
with the 6LBR in order to be able to make use of this scenario. The
6LN can know the address of the 6LBR because it knows the address of
the root via the DODAGID in the DIO messages.
+-------------------+-----+------+------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR |
+-------------------+-----+------+------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+-----+------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root
5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
In this case the 6LBR insert RPI header and send the packet down, the
6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID for
multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed.
No IP-in-IP header is required.
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf
5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this
situation is identical to the previous scenario.
+-------------------+------+-----+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
+-------------------+------+-----+------+
| Inserted headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+-----+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware-
leaf
5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR)
When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR, the 6LR will insert an
RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IPv6-in-IPv6
header can be addressed to the next hop, or to the root. The root
removes the header and processes the packet.
+-------------------+------+----------------+---------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR | 6LBR |
+-------------------+------+----------------+---------------+
| Inserted headers | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+----------------+---------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root
5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be
ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware.
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
No IP-in-IP header is required.
+-------------------+------+------+------+----------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR | Internet |
+-------------------+------+------+------+----------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+------+------+----------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added
in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the
rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is
removed and the packet processed.
+-----------------+----------+---------------+------+---------------+
| Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN |
+-----------------+----------+---------------+------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | RPI | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+-----------------+----------+---------------+------+---------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware-
leaf
5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
The 6LR node will add an IP-in-IP(RPI) header addressed either to the
root, or hop-by-hop such that the root can remove the RPI header
before passing upwards.
The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero
so that it can be better compressed through the LLN, and the 6LBR
will set the flow label to a non-zero value when sending to the
Internet.
+-----------------+------+---------------+---------------+----------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR | Internet |
+-----------------+------+---------------+---------------+----------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+-----------------+------+---------------+---------------+----------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IP-in-IP header.
The IP-in-IP can be addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf, leaving the
RPI inside.
The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IP-in-IP header to zero
in order to aid in compression, as the packet will not emerge again
from the LLN.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+-----------------+----------+---------------+---------------+------+
| Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
+-----------------+----------+---------------+---------------+------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+-----------------+----------+---------------+---------------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL-
aware-leaf
5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop optimization for both
storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a packet destined
to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550].
In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent,
the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the
rank).
While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or
remove the RPI, so no IP-in-IP headers are necessary. This may be
done regardless of where the destination is, as the included RPI will
be ignored by the receiver.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+-------------+-------+---------------+---------------+-----+-------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LR (common | 6LR | 6LN |
| | src | | parent) | | dst |
+-------------+-------+---------------+---------------+-----+-------+
| Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI |
| headers | | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
| Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | -- | -- |
| headers | | (decreasing | (increasing | | |
| | | rank) | rank) | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
+-------------+-------+---------------+---------------+-----+-------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf
5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN
This situation is identical to the situation Section 5.9
5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
The 6LR receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and inserts and
the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IP-in-IP
header is addressed to the destinion 6LN.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR | common | 6LR | 6LN |
| | | | parent | | |
| | | | (6LR) | | |
+--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Insert | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- |
| ed hea | | IP(RPI) | | | |
| ders | | | | | |
| Remove | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- |
| d head | | | | | IP(RPI) |
| ers | | | | | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| added | | | | | |
| header | | | | | |
| s | | | | | |
| Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- |
| ed hea | | | IP(RPI) | IP(RPI) | |
| ders | | | | | |
| Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| hed he | | | | | |
| aders | | | | | |
+--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
RPL-aware-leaf
5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)--> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-
RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)
This flow is identical to Section 5.11
6. Non Storing mode
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+
| Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst |
+--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+
| Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- |
| root to Raf | Yes | Yes | No | -- |
| root to ~Raf | No | Yes | Yes | 6LR |
| ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root |
| Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root |
| Int to Raf | opt | Yes | Yes | dst |
| ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root |
| Int to ~Raf | opt | Yes | Yes | 6LR |
| Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/dst |
| Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR |
| ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LN |
| ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR |
+--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+
Table 2: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP
encapsulation
6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send
traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included to avoid/detect
loops.
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR)
This situation is the same case as storing mode.
+-------------------+-----+-----+------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR |
+-------------------+-----+-----+------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Modified headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+-----+-----+------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
root
6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
The 6LBR will insert an RH3, and may optionally insert an RPI header.
No IP-in-IP header is necessary as the traffic originates with an RPL
aware node.
+-------------------+-----------------+------+----------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN |
+-------------------+-----------------+------+----------+
| Inserted headers | (opt: RPI), RH3 | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RH3,RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RH3 | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+-----------------+------+----------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-
leaf
6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6 node)
In 6LBR the RH3 is added, and modified in 6LR where it is fully
consumed, but left there. If the RPI is left present, the IPv6 node
which does not understand it will drop it, therefore the RPI should
be removed before reaching the IPv6-only node. To permit removal, an
IP-in-IP header (hop-by-hop) or addressed to the last 6LR is
necessary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the root,
the 6LBR is able to address the IP-in-IP header to the last 6LR.
Omitting the RPI entirely is therefore a better solution, as no IP-
in-IP header is necessary.
+-------------------+------+-----+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
+-------------------+------+-----+------+
| Inserted headers | RH3 | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RH3 | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+-----+------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-
aware-leaf
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
In this case the flow comprises:
IPv6-node --> 6LR1 --> 6LR2 --> root (6LBR)
In this case the RPI is added by the first 6LR, encapsulated in an
IP-in-IP header, and is not modified in the followings 6LRs. The RPI
and entire packet is consumed by the root.
+-------------------+------+----------------+------+----------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR1 | 6LR2 | 6LBR |
+-------------------+------+----------------+------+----------------+
| Inserted headers | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+----------------+------+----------------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root
6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
This case requires that the RPI be added, but remoted by the 6LBR.
The 6LN must therefore add the RPI inside an IP-in-IP header,
addressed to the root. This case is identical to storing-mode case.
The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression, and
the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the
Internet.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+-----------------+---------------+------+---------------+----------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR | Internet |
+-----------------+---------------+------+---------------+----------+
| Inserted | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | RPI | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+-----------------+---------------+------+---------------+----------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and
address of the target not, it can address the IP-in-IP header to that
node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to aid
compression.
The RPI may be added or not.
+----------+----------+-----------------------+---------------+-----+
| Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+---------------+-----+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,opt:RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+---------------+-----+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-
aware-leaf
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
In this case the flow label is recommended to be zero in the IPv6
node. As RPL headers are added in the IPv6 node, the first 6LN will
add an RPI header inside a new IP-in-IP header. The IP-in-IP header
will be addressed to the root. This case is identical to the
storing-mode case.
+-----------------+------+---------------+---------------+----------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR | 6LBR | Internet |
+-----------------+------+---------------+---------------+----------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+-----------------+------+---------------+---------------+----------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR
will know the path, and will recognize that the final node is not an
RPL capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from
the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IP-in-IP header
destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon
entry in order to aid compression.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+----------+---------+-----------------------+---------------+------+
| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
| | t | | | |
+----------+---------+-----------------------+---------------+------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,opt:RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3, | -- |
| headers | | | RPI) | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+---------+-----------------------+---------------+------+
NonStoring: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL-
aware-leaf
6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating
node will add an RPI header to the original packet, and send the
packet upwards.
The originating node could put the RPI into an IP-in-IP header
addressed to the root, so that the 6LBR can remove that header.
The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it
add an IP-in-IP header. It may be able to remove the RPI if it was
contained in an IP-in-IP header addressed to it. Otherwise, there
may be an RPI header buried inside the inner IP header, which should
get ignored.
Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially
non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+----------+---------------+--------------+-----+-------------------+
| Header | 6LN src | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN dst |
+----------+---------------+--------------+-----+-------------------+
| Inserted | IP-in-IP(RPI) | IP-in-IP(RH3 | -- | -- |
| headers | | to 6LN,RPI) | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,RPI) |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+---------------+--------------+-----+-------------------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf
6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN
As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert an RPI header which MUST
be in an IP-in-IP header addressed to the root so that the 6LBR can
remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a new IP-
in-IP header addressed to the 6LN above the destination node.
+-----------+---------------+---------------+----------------+------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------+----------------+------+
| Inserted | IP-in-IP(RPI) | IP-in-IP(RH3, | -- | -- |
| headers | | opt RPI) | | |
| Removed | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | IP-in-IP(RH3, | -- |
| headers | | | opt RPI) | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------+----------------+------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
not-RPL-aware-leaf
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
This scenario is mostly identical to the previous one. The RPI is
added by the first 6LR inside an IP-in-IP header addressed to the
root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add it's own IP-in-IP
header containing an RH3 header.
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR | 6LBR | 6LN |
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3) |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
RPL-aware-leaf
6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware
6LN
This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+----------+-----+-------------+--------------+--------------+------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
| | 6 | | | | |
+----------+-----+-------------+--------------+--------------+------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | -- |
| headers | | IP(RPI) | IP(RH3) | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- |
| headers | | | IP(RPI) | IP(RH3, opt | |
| | | | | RPI) | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | | |
| headers | | | | | |
+----------+-----+-------------+--------------+--------------+------+
Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
not-RPL-aware-leaf
7. Observations about the problem
7.1. Storing mode
In the completely general storing case, which includes not-RPL aware
leaf nodes, it is not possible for a sending node to know if the
destination is RPL aware, and therefore it must always use hop-by-hop
IP-in-IP encapsulation, and it can never omit the IP-in-IP
encapsulation. See table Table 1
The simplest fully general stiaution for storing mode is to always
put in hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers. [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch]
shows that this hop-by-hop IP-in-IP header can be compressed down to
{TBD} bytes.
There are potential significant advantages to having a single code
path that always processes IP-in-IP headers with no options.
If all RPL aware nodes can be told/configured that there are no non-
RPL aware leaf nodes, then the only case where an IP-in-IP header is
needed is when communicating outside the LLN. The 6LBR knows well
when the communication is from the outside, and the 6LN can tell by
comparing the destination address to the prefix provided in the PIO.
If it is known that there are no communications outside the RPL
domain (noting that the RPL domain may well extend to outside the
LLN), then RPI headers can be included in all packets, and IP-in-IP
headers are *never* needed. This may be significantly advantageous
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
in relatively closed systems such as in building or industrial
automation. Again, there are advantages to having a single code
path.
In order to support the above two cases with full generality, the
different situations (always do IP-in-IP vs never use IP-in-IP)
should be signaled in the RPL protocol itself.
7.2. Non-Storing mode
This the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is
much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the
connectivity of all nodes, and all traffic flows through the root
node.
The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will
receive a DAO about that node from the 6LN immediately above that
node. This means that the non-storing mode case can avoid ever using
hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers.
It is unclear what it would mean for an RH3 header to be present in a
hop-by-hop IP-in-IP header. The receiving node ought to consume the
IP-in-IP header, and therefore consume the RH3 as well, and then
attempt to send the packet again. But intermediate 6LN nodes would
not know how to forward the packet, so the RH3 would need to be
retained. This is a new kind of IPv6 packet processing. Therefore
it may be that on the outbound leg of non-storing RPL networks, that
hop-by-hop IP-in-IP header can NOT be used.
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows how the destination=root, and
destination=6LN IP-in-IP header can be compressed down to {TBD}
bytes.
Unlike in the storing mode case, there are no need for all nodes to
know about the existence of non-RPL aware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs
to change when there are non-RPL aware nodes. Further, in the non-
storing case, the 6LBR is informed by the DAOs when there are non-RPL
aware nodes.
8. 6LoRH Compression cases
The [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method
for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6.
In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-
RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise
an IP-in-IP and RPI compression headers. The type of this case is
critical since IP-in-IP is encapsulating a RPI header.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
|1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC |
+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
Figure 4: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI).
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
10. Security Considerations
The security considerations covering of [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] apply
when the packets get into RPL Domain.
11. Acknowledgments
This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training
Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728).
The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and
comments of Thomas Watteyne, Xavier Vilajosana, Robert Cragie, Simon
Duquennoy and Peter van der Stok.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]
Deering, D. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-05 (work
in progress), June 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-10 (work
in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch]
Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing-
dispatch-00 (work in progress), March 2016.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 July 2016
[Second6TischPlugtest]
"2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/6tisch/current/pdfgDMQcdCkRz.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Maria Ines Robles
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com
Michael C. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
470 Dawson Avenue
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7
CA
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille
Batiment T3, Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
France
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Robles, et al. Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 29]