Eliding and Querying RPL Information
draft-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-03
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 | Pascal Thubert , Rahul Jadhav , Li Zhao , Dominique Barthel | ||
| Last updated | 2019-11-17 | ||
| 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-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-03
ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 6550 (if approved) R.A. Jadhav
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Tech
Expires: 20 May 2020 L. Zhao
Cisco Systems
D. Barthel
Orange Labs
17 November 2019
Eliding and Querying RPL Information
draft-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-03
Abstract
This document presents a method to safely elide a group of RPL
options in a DIO message by synchronizing the state associated with
each of these options between parent and child using a new sequence
counter in DIO messages. A child that missed a DIO message with an
update of any of those protected options detects it by the change of
sequence counter and queries the update with a DIS Message. The
draft also provides a method to fully elide the options in a DAO
message.
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 20 May 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Updated DIO Base Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Updated DIS Base Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. New Abbreviated Option Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Updated DAO Base Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. RCSS Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Updating the RCSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. RCSS Freshness and Parent selection . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. RCSS of an Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Synchronizing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Abbreviating the DAO Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. New DODAG Information Solicitation Flags . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. New DODAG Advertisement Object Flag . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.3. New RPL Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Classical Link State protocol synchronize their Link State Database
(LSDB) by sequencing every change. Each interested node maintains
the last sequence of the LSDB it is synchronizing with. If the last
known sequence number is older than the current, the node needs to
learn one by one all the state changes between the last known and the
current state.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
[RPL] does not operate that way. With RPL, the routing information
is repeated over and over in DODAG Information Object (DIO) and
Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) messages. There is no concept
of synchronization. The most recent information overrides a previous
one and a stale state eventually times out.
The RPL way was designed to enable routing from most nodes to most
nodes most of the time in a Low-Power Lossy Network (LLN) where the
quality of the links and the cost of communications does not permit
to maintain a permanent synchronization.
This principle was applied to both the routing and non-routing
information such as configuration settings, prefix information, and
node capabilities.
This non-routing state is carried in RPL Messages as options. Some
of the DIO options may be needed to decide whether a node can join a
network as a leaf or as a router, and may affect the parent selection
or the address selection. It is thus critical that each node
maintains its state to the freshest and selects parents that are also
synchronized to the freshest.
[RPL] allows a parent to elide options in the DIO messages that it
sends repeatedly, to conserve battery and save bandwidth. When it
does so, a newcomer child that missed DIOs that contained the
configuration option may operate on default or partial information.
If it is pessimistic, it may query all possible information even when
it is not needed. Conversely, a node that slept may have missed a
DIO with a change in some critical information and may not be even
aware of it, so it may fail to query for the update and operate on
deprecated parameters.
This document uses a new sequence counter called RCSS to synchronize
the state in a child node with that of its parent, and recursively
with that of the whole network, to the latest setting from the Root.
The protected options are:
1. The Route Information Option (RIO) defined in section 6.7.5 of
[RPL]
2. The DODAG Configuration Option (DCO) defined in section 6.7.6 of
[RPL]
3. The Prefix Information Option (PIO) defined in section 6.7.10 of
[RPL]
4. The Extended MOP Option (MOPex) defined in [MOPEX-CAP]
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
5. The Global Capabilities Option (GCO) defined in [MOPEX-CAP]
Any change in those options causes an increment of the RCSS and
enables a network-wide synchronization to the new state. If the
change impacts the routing substantially, the Root should decide to
increment the Version Number at the same time to fully rebuild the
DODAG with the new settings of the options. It must be noted that
the operation of the Version Number in itself provides no guarantee
that the non-routing state is fully resynchronized everywhere unless
all the options are present in all the DIO messages.
2. Terminology
2.1. BCP 14
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. References
The Terminology used in this document is consistent with and
incorporates that described in Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power
and Lossy Networks [RFC7102].
Other terms in use in LLNs are found in Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks [RFC7228].
A glossary of classical RPL acronyms is given in Section 2.3.
The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
"octet".
"RPL", "RPL Packet Information" (RPI) and "RPL Instance", DIO, DAO
and DIS messages are defined in the "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RPL] specification.
This document uses the terms RPL Leaf, RPL Aware Leaf (RAL), RPL-
Aware Node (RAN) and RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) as defined in section 2
of [USE_OF_RPL_INFO].
A RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL) thus refers to a host that does not
understand RPL but uses a RPL router (without necessarily knowing it)
as 6LR and depends on that router to obtain reachability for its
addresses inside the RPL domain. On the contrary, the term RPL-Aware
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
Node (RAN) is used to refer to a node that participates to RPL and
advertises its addresses or prefixes by itself.
2.3. Glossary
This document often uses the following acronyms:
DODAG Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph
LLN Low-Power and Lossy Network
RPI RPL Packet Information (an Option in the Hop-By_Hop Header)
RAL RPL-Aware Leaf
RAN RPL-Aware Node
RS Router Solicitation
RCSS RPL Configuration State Sequence
RPL IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (pronounced ripple)
RUL RPL-Unaware Leaf
3. Updating RFC 6550
This document adds a new field called RCSS to the DIO message. The
RCSS is a sequence counter set by the Root and operated as specified
in Section 7 of [RPL], more in Section 5.
This document also introduces a new RPL Control Message Option called
the Abbreviated Option Option (AOO). The AOO is the compressed
replacement of a protected option that indicates the RCSS of the last
change of that option, but elides its content, more in Section 4.3.
This document modifies the DIS Base Object to enable the individual
query of the protected options by a node that missed a change, more
in Section 4.2.
This document also enables to abbreviate a full DAO message when all
the options are unchanged from the previous DAO message that was
positively acknowledged. In that case the DAO is resent with the
same DAOSequence and all the options are elided. A new flag in the
DAO Base Object indicates that this is an abbreviated DAO message,
more in Section 7.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
4. Message Formats
4.1. Updated DIO Base Object
The format of the DIO Base Object is defined in section 6.3.1 of
[RPL]. In order to transport the RCSS, this specification uses an
8th octet that was reserved in [RPL].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |Version Number | Rank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G|0| MOP | Prf | DTSN | Flags | RCSS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Updated DIO Base Object
Updated fields:
RCSS
One Byte, the RPL Configuration State Sequence
4.2. Updated DIS Base Object
The DIS Base Object is use by a child to query from a parent the most
recent changes in protected options. This specification adds flags
to indicate which options are requested and the freshest RCSS to
which the querying node was synchronized.
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|D|P[M|O| Flg | LastSync RCSS | Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Updated DIS Base Object
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
Updated fields:
R
One Bit, indicates that the RIO is requested
D
One Bit, indicates that the DCO is requested
P
One Bit, indicates that the PIO(s) is(are) requested
M
One Bit, indicates that the MOPex is requested
O
One Bit, indicates that the GCO is requested
Last Synchronized RCSS
One Byte, indicates the freshest RCSS to which the querier was
synchronized
4.3. New Abbreviated Option Option
The abbreviated version of an option is a replacement for any option.
It does not advertise the content of the option but indicates the
sender's value for the RCSS of that option. It is transported in a
4-bytes long Abbreviated Option Option (AOO) with a format as below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length | Abbrev. opt. | Last Mod RCSS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Abbreviated Option Option Format
Option fields:
Option Type
One byte indicating "Abbreviated Option", see Table 3 in
Section 9.3
Option Length
MUST be set to 2 indicating Option data of 2 bytes
Abbreviated Option
The Option Type of the option being abbreviated
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
Last Modification RCSS
The RCSS at which the option was last modified
4.4. Updated DAO Base Object
The format of the DAO Base Object is defined in section 6.4.1 of
[RPL]. This specification adds a 'A' flag in to indicate the DAO
options eliding.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |K|D|A| Flags | Reserved | DAOSequence |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID* +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Updated DAO Base Object
Updated fields:
A
One Bit, indicates DAO in abbreviated version
5. RCSS Operation
Settings and updates to network-wide parameters are initiated by the
Root and propagated down the DODAG in RPL Control Message Options in
DIO messages. The DIO messages arrive asynchronously via different
parents and may confuse a child. The RCSS allows the child to keep
synchronized to the latest settings network-wide parameters that are
propagated in protected options.
The RCSS is a sequence number that is operated as specified in
section 7.2 of [RPL]. The scope of an RCSS is one DODAG within one
RPL Instance. The RCSS applies to a DIO Message and a same value of
the RCSS can be used in DIO messages that are sent consecutively with
no change in the protected options.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
The Root of the DODAG is autoritative to set and update the RCSS and
the options that it protects. The RCSS and the protected options are
propagated together down the DODAG without a change, more in
Section 5.1.
The RCSS allows a child node to recognize the fresher DIO Message(s)
as received from one or more advertising parents and to use only
parents with a consistent state of network-wide parameters, more in
Section 5.2.
By extension, the RCSS is also defined for each protected option. A
child associates an option with the values of the RCSS indicated in
DIO Messages in which the option is advertised and uses it to assess
the relative freshness of different versions of an option, more in
Section 5.3.
Unchanged options may be sent in full, elided, or in the abbreviated
form specified in Section 4.3. Which form to use depends on the
RCSS, more in Section 5.3
If the link MTU does not permit to send a single DIO message with all
the options packaged then the options may be spread over multiple
consecutive DIO messages with the same RCSS that are sent in a rapid
sequence.
5.1. Updating the RCSS
The RCSS is incremented by the Root using a lollipop technique as
specified in section 7.2 of [RPL]. RCSS values are comparable if
they are within a window of comparison of SEQUENCE_WINDOW increments
or one indicates a reboot.
A reboot of the Root is detected when the RCSS moves from the
circular to the straight part of the lollipop. In order to maximize
the chances of detection, the straight part should be kept very short
with a RECOMMENDED initialization at 252 or above.
During the straight part of the lollipop, a second reboot of the Root
might not be recognized and a same value of the RCSS may reappear
with different settings in the protected options. For that reason
the protected options MUST be provided in full with each increment on
the RCSS during the straight part of the lollipop.
When a field is modified in one of the protected options, the Root
MUST send a DIO with an incremented RCSS and the modified protected
option(s) in full. The Root MAY also update the Version Number to
form a new DODAG altogether.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
The Root SHOULD jump rapidly away from the straight part once the
network has sufficiently settled by resetting the RCSS to 0, which
places the RCSS in the circular region of the lollipop, where the
protected options MAY be elided or abbreviated.
5.2. RCSS Freshness and Parent selection
A child node maintains the freshest RCSS received from its parents in
each of the RPL Instances that it participates to, and uses that RCSS
for its own DIO messages once it has all the protected options
synchronized to it.
A child and a candidate parent are out-of-sync when the RCSS values
that they maintain for a RPL Instance are not comparable. A child
MUST NOT use a parent that is out-of-sync unless no other parent is
available, in which case it MAY align its RCSS and resynchronize to
that parent.
When a child receives from a candidate parent a DIO with an RCSS that
is fresher than the one it is using, the child MUST synchronize the
state relative to the protected options with that parent. The child
node MUST refrain from using that parent and the new state including
the RCSS, until it has synchronized all of the protected options to
that RCSS. When it is fully synchronized, the child may then use
that parent and the new RCSS.
Using a back-level parent may cause packets to be dropped,
misunderstood or misrouted. The child SHOULD refrain from using a
parent that exposes an older RCSS if the change causes an
incompatibility issue.
5.3. RCSS of an Option
By extension, the RCSS of an option is maintained by all nodes and is
defined for all but the root as the freshest RCSS indicated by a DIO
message from a candidate parent in which the option was present, in
the abbreviated form or in full. A child maintains a state for the
RCSS of each of the protected options and synchronizes its state for
the options by comparing that RCSS with the one found in new DIO
messages for the option.
Protected options may be sent in full, elided, or in the abbreviated
form. Which form to use depends on the RCSS of the option that a
parent maintains:
* A parent MAY use either form when the RCSS is not changed from a
previous DIO; eliding options is PREFERRED in stable conditions to
save resources.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
* When a protected option is updated, the RCSS is mechanically
incremented, and the new option MUST be sent in full on the first
DIO that advertises that new RCSS and the corresponding AOO SHOULD
NOT be added.
* When the RCSS is updated but a protected option is unchanged, the
parent SHOULD NOT fully elide the option as it may cause multiple
children to resynchronize it to no avail. The use of AOO is
RECOMMENDED unless it may cause a desynchronization for that
option, in which case the option SHOULD be placed in full more in
Section 5.3.
When a child receives a DIO from a candidate parent, for each option:
If the Option is advertised in the abbreviated form then the RCSS
that the DIO advertises for the option is the Last Modification
RCSS of the AOO, else
If the Option is advertised in full then the RCSS that the DIO
advertises for the option is the RCSS of the DIO, else
If the Option is elided then the RCSS is unspecified but it is at
most as fresh as the RCSS of the DIO, and the RCSS of the DIO is
assumed for the comparison
This means that if an Option is advertised in both the abbreviated
form and in full in a same DIO message then the RCSS in the AOO has
precedence.
To keep the RCSS comparable for each option, the RCSS of an option
must lazily progress along with the global RCSS even if there was no
change in the options. Each parent including the Root MUST advertise
a new RCSS for each of the protected options at least once within a
sliding window of SEQUENCE_WINDOW increments.
When an option was not changed for a new RCSS, one parent may
advertise it in the abbreviated form while another sends the option
in full only, e.g., in response to a DIS message. A fresher RCSS
indicates that the option is either the same or carries a more recent
update than the one with an older RCSS.
The RCSS of an option may be obtained from a DIO message that carries
the option in full even if the RCSS of the DIO is not the freshest
across parents, as long as the RCSS of the DIO is fresher than the
current one for that option.
If the current value of the maintained RCSS for a given option is not
fresher or as fresh as that advertised in a DIO message, then the
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
child MUST update its state for that option as specified in
Section 6.
6. Synchronizing Options
As the value of the RCSS progresses, it is NOT RECOMMENDED for a
child to attempt to resynchronize to an intermediate value of a RCSS
with a parent that is already back level vs. the lastest known RCSS
or the RCSS that this child is currently using, or a parent that is
out-of-sync with self. The child MAY only do so if it lost
reachability to all the candidate parents that advertise a fresher
and not out-of-sync value of RCSS.
A child can resynchronize any of the protected options to the latest
RCSS by sending a DIS Message to a candidate parent that advertises
that RCSS in DIO messages. The child MUST set the desired
combination of 'R', 'D', 'P', 'M' and 'O' flags to indicate the
option(s) that it needs updated. The child MUST signal in the Last
Synchronized RCSS field of the DIS the freshest value of RCSS for
which it was fully synchronized, or a conventional value of OUT-OF-
SYNC-RCSS of 129 if it was never synchronized or is out-of-sync with
the parent.
The DIO message that is sent in response MUST contain in full all the
options that are requested and that were updated since the Last
Synchronized RCSS in the DIS Message. This means all of the
protected options if the child was never synchronized or is out-of-
sync with the parent. The other options MUST be added in the
abbreviated form. The options MAY be spread over more than one DIO
message sent in a quick sequence. It is possible that the DIS is not
received by the parent or that a DIO that carries all or subset of
the requested options is lost in return. In that case the child MUST
resend a DIS with the bits associated to the options that are still
missing after a reasonable technology-dependent time before it
retries the request. The child MAY use any parent that advertises
the RCSS to get any of the options up to that level.
7. Abbreviating the DAO Message
When a node receives a positive DAO-ACK upon a DAO message for a
given DAOSequence, The DAO-ACK indicates that the DAO was fully
processed by its destination (parent or Root). Until there's a
change in one of the DAO options since that DAOSequence, the next DAO
messages merely refresh the lifetime of the routes. In that case,
increasing the DAOSequence creates undesirable churn up the DODAG for
no added value.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
This specification enables a node to refresh the state in a
destination that is associated to one or more DAO message(s) that
were acknowledged by that destination without resending the DAO
message(s) in full. Instead, the node MAY use a single abbreviated
DAO message that is sent to the same destination and with the same
DAOSequence as the DAO message(s) that it refreshes, and with the 'A'
flag set (see Section 4.4) to signal it is an abbreviated DAO.
This can be more than one message if the node could not package all
its state in a single message, e.g., due to MTU restrictions. In
that case the DAO state that is refreshed is the aggregation of the
DAO messages that were acknowledged for the provided DAOSequence by
that destination.
Upon the abbreviated DAO, the destination refreshes the state
associated to the original DAO message(s) received with that
DAOSequence, typically by extending the lifetimes of the routes that
were advertised with the same duration.
A node MAY also unset 'K' flag in the abbreviated DAP message and not
expect a DAO-ACK, if the node can assume the risk that the DAO is
lost, e.g., if the routes will be refreshed again before the lifetime
expires.
Only the DAO message(s) with the last (freshest) DAOSequence can be a
abbreviated. A nod MUST NOT use an abbreviated DAO with a
DAOSequence that is not the freshest and it MUST NOT use the
abbreviated form of the DAO until the destination has acknowledged
all state associated with that DAOSequence. If a destination
receives an abbreviated DAO with a DAOSequence that is not the
freshest from that node, or the destination does not have a state for
that node, then MUST send a DAO-ACK with a DAO Status indicating an
error. The destination MAY use a new Status of 'Out-of-Sync' in
which case the node MUST resent the DAO Message(s) in full with its
freshest DAOSequence and the destination resynchronizes to that
level.
It is RECOMMENDED to use an abbreviated DAO messages whenever
possible, because a smaller DAO message consumes less energy and
bandwidth and has better chances of delivery. In Non-Storing Mode
the benefits increases with the number of hops to the Root, and in
Storing Mode with the amount of state that is implicitely refreshed.
8. Security Considerations
TBD
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. New DODAG Information Solicitation Flags
5 new bits are allocated in the Registry for the DODAG Information
Solicitation (DIS) Flags defined for [RPL].
+------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Number | Capability description | Reference |
+============+============================+===========+
| 0 | 'R' bit "RIO requested" | THIS RFC |
+------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | 'D' bit "DCO requested" | THIS RFC |
+------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | 'P' bit "PIO(s) requested" | THIS RFC |
+------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 3 | 'M' bit "MOPex requested" | THIS RFC |
+------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 4 | 'O' bit "GCO irequested" | THIS RFC |
+------------+----------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: New DIS Flags
9.2. New DODAG Advertisement Object Flag
1 new bit is allocated in the Registry for the Destination
Advertisement Object(DAO) Flags defined for[RPL].
+------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Number | Capability description | Reference |
+============+===========================+===========+
| 2 | 'A' bit "DAO abbreviated" | THIS RFC |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: New DAO Flag
9.3. New RPL Control Message Option
A new entry is required for the new option of type "Abbreviated
Option", from the "RPL Control Message Options" space defined for
[RPL].
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
+----------+--------------------+-----------+
| Code | Description | Reference |
+==========+====================+===========+
| TBD IANA | Abbreviated Option | THIS RFC |
+----------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 3: New Option Type
10. Acknowledgments
11. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RPL] 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
[MOPEX-CAP]
Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., and M. Richardson, "Mode of
Operation extension and Capabilities", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-mopex-cap-01, 2 November
2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-mopex-
cap-01>.
[USE_OF_RPL_INFO]
Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPL
Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Eliding RPL Info November 2019
IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-31,
7 August 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
roll-useofrplinfo-31>.
12. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D, 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 Mougins - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Rahul Arvind Jadhav
Huawei Tech
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore 560037
Karnataka
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Li Zhao
China
200233
SHANGHAI
Xinsi Building, No. 926 Yi Shan Rd
Cisco Systems, Inc
Email: liz3@cisco.com
Dominique Barthel
Orange Labs
28 chemin du Vieux Chêne
38243 Meylan
France
Email: dominique.barthel@orange.com
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 16]