6Lo Working Group C. Gomez
Internet-Draft S. Darroudi
Intended status: Standards Track Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
Expires: June 10, 2021 T. Savolainen
DarkMatter
M. Spoerk
Graz University of Technology
December 7, 2020
IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy using IPSP
draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
Abstract
RFC 7668 describes the adaptation of 6LoWPAN techniques to enable
IPv6 over Bluetooth low energy networks that follow the star
topology. However, recent Bluetooth specifications allow the
formation of extended topologies as well. This document specifies
mechanisms that are needed to enable IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth Low
Energy links established by using the Bluetooth Internet Protocol
Support Profile. This document does not specify the routing protocol
to be used in an IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
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 June 10, 2021.
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
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
(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
1.1. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Bluetooth LE Networks and the IPSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Specification of IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links . . . . . 4
3.1. Protocol stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Subnet model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Link model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Stateless address autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.3. Header compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.4. Unicast and multicast mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Appendix A: Bluetooth LE connection establishment example . . 11
9. Appendix B: Node joining procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Bluetooth Low Energy (hereinafter, Bluetooth LE) was first introduced
in the Bluetooth 4.0 specification. Bluetooth LE (which has been
marketed as Bluetooth Smart) is a low-power wireless technology
designed for short-range control and monitoring applications.
Bluetooth LE is currently implemented in a wide range of consumer
electronics devices, such as smartphones and wearable devices. Given
the high potential of this technology for the Internet of Things, the
Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) and the IETF have
produced specifications in order to enable IPv6 over Bluetooth LE,
such as the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP) [IPSP], and RFC
7668 [RFC7668], respectively. Bluetooth 4.0 only supports Bluetooth
LE networks that follow the star topology. As a consequence, RFC
7668 [RFC7668] was specifically developed and optimized for that type
of network topology. However, the functionality described in RFC
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
7668 [RFC7668] is not sufficient and would fail to enable an IPv6
mesh over Bluetooth LE links. This document specifies mechanisms
that are needed to enable IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links. This
document does not specify the routing protocol to be used in an IPv6
mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
1.1. 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 BCP14 RFC 2119
[RFC2119], RFC 8174 [RFC8174], when, and only when, they appear in
all capitals, as shown here.
The terms 6LoWPAN Node (6LN), 6LoWPAN Router (6LR) and 6LoWPAN Border
Router (6LBR) are defined as in [RFC6775], with an addition that
Bluetooth LE central and Bluetooth LE peripheral (see Section 2) can
both be adopted by a 6LN, a 6LR or a 6LBR.
2. Bluetooth LE Networks and the IPSP
Bluetooth LE defines two Generic Access Profile (GAP) roles of
relevance herein: the Bluetooth LE central role and the Bluetooth LE
peripheral role. A device in the central role, which is called
central from now on, has traditionally been able to manage multiple
simultaneous connections with a number of devices in the peripheral
role, called peripherals hereinafter. Bluetooth 4.1 (now deprecated)
introduced the possibility for a peripheral to be connected to more
than one central simultaneously, therefore allowing extended
topologies beyond the star topology for a Bluetooth LE network. In
addition, a device may simultaneously be a central in a set of link
layer connections, as well as a peripheral in others.
On the other hand, the IPSP enables discovery of IP-enabled devices
and the establishment of a link layer connection for transporting
IPv6 packets. The IPSP defines the Node and Router roles for devices
that consume/originate IPv6 packets and for devices that can route
IPv6 packets, respectively. Consistently with Bluetooth 4.1 and
subsequent Bluetooth versions (e.g. Bluetooth 4.2 [BTCorev4.2] or
subsequent), a device may implement both roles simultaneously.
This document assumes a mesh network composed of Bluetooth LE links,
where link layer connections are established between neighboring
IPv6-enabled devices (see Section 3.3.2, item 3.b, and an example in
Appendix A)). The IPv6 forwarding devices of the mesh have to
implement both IPSP Node and Router roles, while simpler leaf-only
nodes can implement only the Node role. In an IPv6 mesh over
Bluetooth LE links, a node is a neighbor of another node, and vice
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
versa, if a link layer connection has been established between both
by using the IPSP functionality for discovery and link layer
connection establishment for IPv6 packet transport.
3. Specification of IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links
3.1. Protocol stack
Figure 1 illustrates the protocol stack for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth
LE links. The core Bluetooth LE protocol stack comprises two main
sections: the Controller, and the Host. The former includes the
Physical Layer, and the Link Layer, whereas the latter is composed of
the Logical Link Control and Adaptation Protocol (L2CAP), the
Attribute Protocol (ATT), and the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT).
The Host and the Controller sections are connected by means of the
Host-Controller Interface (HCI). A device that supports the IPSP
Node role instantiates one Internet Protocol Support Service (IPSS),
which runs atop GATT. The protocol stack shown in Figure 1 shows two
main differences with the IPv6 over Bluetooth LE stack in RFC 7668:
a) the adaptation layer below IPv6 (labelled as "6Lo for IPv6 mesh
over Bluetooth LE") is now adapted for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE
links, and b) the protocol stack for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE
links includes IPv6 routing functionality.
+------------------------------------+
| Application |
+---------+ +------------------------------------+
| IPSS | | UDP/TCP/other |
+---------+ +------------------------------------+
| GATT | | IPv6 |routing| |
+---------+ +------------------------------------+
| ATT | | 6Lo for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooh LE |
+---------+--+------------------------------------+
| Bluetooth LE L2CAP |
HCI - - +-------------------------------------------------+ - -
| Bluetooth LE Link Layer |
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Bluetooth LE Physical Layer |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Protocol stack for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
Bluetooth 4.2 defines a default MTU for Bluetooth LE of 251 bytes.
Excluding the L2CAP header of 4 bytes, a protocol data unit (PDU)
size of 247 bytes is available for the layer above L2CAP. (Note:
earlier Bluetooth LE versions offered a maximum amount of 23 bytes
for the layer atop L2CAP.) The L2CAP provides a fragmentation and
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
reassembly solution for transmitting or receiving larger PDUs. At
each link, the IPSP defines means for negotiating a link-layer
connection that provides an MTU of 1280 octets or higher for the IPv6
layer [IPSP]. For the sake of lightweight implementation and
operation, an MTU of 1280 octets is RECOMMENDED for IPv6 mesh over
BLE links. The link-layer MTU is negotiated separately for each
direction. Implementations that require an equal link-layer MTU for
the two directions SHALL use the smallest of the possibly different
MTU values.
Note that this specification allows using different MTUs in different
links. If an implementation requires use of the same MTU on every
one of its links, and a new node with a smaller MTU is added to the
network, a renegotiation of one or more links can occur. In the
worst case, the renegotiations could cascade network-wide. In that
case, implementers need to assess the impact of such phenomenon.
Similarly to RFC 7668, fragmentation functionality from 6LoWPAN
standards is not used for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
Bluetooth LE's fragmentation support provided by L2CAP is used when
necessary.
3.2. Subnet model
For IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links, a multilink model has been
chosen, as further illustrated in Figure 2. As IPv6 over Bluetooth
LE is intended for constrained nodes, and for Internet of Things use
cases and environments, the complexity of implementing a separate
subnet on each peripheral-central link and routing between the
subnets appears to be excessive. In this specification, the benefits
of treating the collection of point-to-point links between a central
and its connected peripherals as a single multilink subnet rather
than a multiplicity of separate subnets are considered to outweigh
the multilink model's drawbacks as described in [RFC4903]. Note that
the route-over functionality defined in [RFC6775] is essential to
enable the multilink subnet model for IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE
links.
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
/
.--------------------------------. /
/ 6LR 6LN 6LN \ /
/ \ \ \ \ /
| \ \ \ | /
| 6LN ----- 6LR --------- 6LR ------ 6LBR ----- | Internet
| <--Link--> <---Link--->/<--Link->/ | |
\ / / / \
\ 6LN ---- 6LR ----- 6LR / \
'--------------------------------' \
\
<------------ Subnet -----------------><---- IPv6 connection -->
to the Internet
Figure 2: Example of an IPv6 mesh over a Bluetooth LE network
connected to the Internet
One or more 6LBRs are connected to the Internet. 6LNs are connected
to the network through a 6LR or a 6LBR. A single Global Unicast
prefix is used on the whole subnet.
IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links MUST follow a route-over approach.
This document does not specify the routing protocol to be used in an
IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
3.3. Link model
3.3.1. Stateless address autoconfiguration
6LN, 6LR, and 6LBR IPv6 addresses in an IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE
links are configured as per section 3.2.2 of RFC 7668.
Multihop Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) functionality as defined
in section 8.2 of RFC 6775 and updated by RFC 8505, or some
substitute mechanism (see section 3.3.2), MAY be supported.
3.3.2. Neighbor Discovery
'Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)' [RFC6775], subsequently updated by
'Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal
Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery' [RFC8505], describes the
neighbor discovery functionality adapted for use in several 6LoWPAN
topologies, including the mesh topology. The route-over
functionality of RFC 6775 and RFC 8505 MUST be supported.
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
The following aspects of the Neighbor Discovery optimizations for
6LoWPAN [RFC6775],[RFC8505] are applicable to Bluetooth LE 6LNs:
1. A Bluetooth LE 6LN SHOULD register its non-link-local addresses
with its routers by sending a Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message with
the Extended Address Registration Option (EARO) and process the
Neighbor Advertisement (NA) accordingly. Note that in some cases
(e.g., very short-lived connections) it may not be worthwhile for a
6LN to send an NS with EARO for registering its address. However,
the consequences of not registering the address (including non-
reachability of the 6LN, and absence of DAD) need to be carefully
considered. The EARO option includes a Registration Ownership
Verifier (ROVR) field [RFC8505]. In the case of Bluetooth LE, by
default the ROVR field is filled with the 48-bit device address used
by the Bluetooth LE node converted into 64-bit Modified EUI-64 format
[RFC4291]. Optionally, a cryptographic ID (see RFC 8928 [RFC8928])
MAY be placed in the ROVR field. If a cryptographic ID is used,
address registration and multihop DAD formats and procedures defined
in RFC 8928 MUST be used, unless an alternative mechanism offering
equivalent protection is used. As per RFC 8505, a 6LN MUST NOT
register its link-local address.
If the 6LN registers multiple addresses that are not based on the
Bluetooth device address using the same compression context, the
header compression efficiency may decrease, since only the last
registered address can be fully elided (see Section 3.2.4 of RFC
7668).
2. For sending Router Solicitations and processing Router
Advertisements, the hosts that participate in an IPv6 mesh over BLE
MUST, respectively, follow Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of [RFC6775], and
Section 5.6 of [RFC8505].
3. The router behavior for 6LRs and 6LBRs is described in Section 6
of RFC 6775, and updated by RFC 8505. However, as per this
specification: a) Routers SHALL NOT use multicast NSs to discover
other routers' link layer addresses. b) As per section 6.2 of RFC
6775, in a dynamic configuration scenario, a 6LR comes up as a non-
router and waits to receive a Router Advertisement for configuring
its own interface address first, before setting its interfaces to be
advertising interfaces and turning into a router. In order to
support such operation in an IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links, a 6LR
first uses the IPSP Node role only. Once the 6LR has established a
connection with another node currently running as a router, and
receives a Router Advertisement from that router, the 6LR configures
its own interface address, it turns into a router, and it runs as an
IPSP Router. In contrast with a 6LR, a 6LBR uses the IPSP Router
role since the 6LBR is initialized, that is, the 6LBR uses both the
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
IPSP Node and IPSP Router roles at all times. See an example in
Appendix B..
4. Border router behavior is described in Section 7 of RFC 6775, and
updated by RFC 8505.
RFC 6775 defines substitutable mechanisms for distributing prefixes
and context information (section 8.1 of RFC 6775), as well as for
Duplicate Address Detection across a route-over 6LoWPAN (section 8.2
of RFC 6775). RFC 8505 updates those mechanisms and the related
message formats. Implementations of this specification MUST either
support the features described in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of RFC 6775,
as updated by RFC 8505, or some alternative ("substitute") mechanism.
3.3.3. Header compression
Header compression as defined in RFC 6282 [RFC6282], which specifies
the compression format for IPv6 datagrams on top of IEEE 802.15.4, is
REQUIRED as the basis for IPv6 header compression on top of Bluetooth
LE. All headers MUST be compressed according to RFC 6282 [RFC6282]
encoding formats.
To enable efficient header compression, when the 6LBR sends a Router
Advertisement it MAY include a 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) [RFC6775]
matching each address prefix advertised via a Prefix Information
Option (PIO) [RFC4861] for use in stateless address
autoconfiguration. Note that 6CO is not needed for context-based
compression when context is pre-provisioned or provided by out-of-
band means.
The specific optimizations of RFC 7668 for header compression, which
exploited the star topology and ARO (note that the latter has been
updated by EARO as per RFC 8505), cannot be generalized in an IPv6
mesh over Bluetooth LE links. Still, a subset of those optimizations
can be applied in some cases in such a network. These cases comprise
link-local interactions, non-link-local packet transmissions
originated by a 6LN (i.e. the first hop from a 6LN), and non-link-
local packets intended for a 6LN that are originated or forwarded by
a neighbor of that 6LN (i.e. the last hop toward a 6LN). For all
other packet transmissions, context-based compression MAY be used.
When a device transmits a packet to a neighbor, the sender MUST fully
elide the source IID if the source IPv6 address is the link-local
address based on the sender's Bluetooth device address (SAC=0,
SAM=11). The sender also MUST fully elide the destination IPv6
address if it is the link-local address based on the neighbor's
Bluetooth device address (DAC=0, DAM=11).
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
When a 6LN transmits a packet, with a non-link-local source address
that the 6LN has registered with EARO in the next-hop router for the
indicated prefix, the source address MUST be fully elided if it is
the latest address that the 6LN has registered for the indicated
prefix (SAC=1, SAM=11). If the source non-link-local address is not
the latest registered by the 6LN, and the first 48 bits of the IID
match with the latest address registered by the 6LN, then the last 16
bits of the IID SHALL be carried in-line (SAC=1, SAM=10). Otherwise,
if the first 48 bits of the IID do not match, then the 64 bits of the
IID SHALL be fully carried in-line (SAC=1, SAM=01).
When a router transmits a packet to a neighboring 6LN, with a non-
link-local destination address, the router MUST fully elide the
destination IPv6 address if the destination address is the latest
registered by the 6LN with EARO for the indicated context (DAC=1,
DAM=11). If the destination address is a non-link-local address and
not the latest registered, and the first 48 bits of the IID match to
those of the latest registered address, then the last 16 bits of the
IID SHALL be carried in-line (DAC=1, DAM=10). Otherwise, if the
first 48 bits of the IID do not match, then the 64 bits of the IID
SHALL be fully carried in-line (DAC=1, DAM=01).
3.3.4. Unicast and multicast mapping
The Bluetooth LE Link Layer does not support multicast. Hence,
traffic is always unicast between two Bluetooth LE neighboring nodes.
If a node needs to send a multicast packet to several neighbors, it
has to replicate the packet and unicast it on each link. However,
this may not be energy efficient, and particular care must be taken
if the node is battery powered. A router (i.e., a 6LR or a 6LBR)
MUST keep track of neighboring multicast listeners, and it MUST NOT
forward multicast packets to neighbors that have not registered as
listeners for multicast groups to which the packets are destined.
4. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations in RFC 7668 apply.
IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links requires a routing protocol to find
end-to-end paths. Unfortunately, the routing protocol may generate
additional opportunities for threats and attacks to the network.
RFC 7416 [RFC7416] provides a systematic overview of threats and
attacks on the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
(RPL), as well as countermeasures. In that document, described
threats and attacks comprise threats due to failures to authenticate,
threats due to failure to keep routing information, threats and
attacks on integrity, and threats and attacks on availability.
Reported countermeasures comprise confidentiality attack, integrity
attack, and availability attack countermeasures.
While this specification does not state the routing protocol to be
used in IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links, the guidance of RFC 7416
is useful when RPL is used in such scenarios. Furthermore, such
guidance may partly apply for other routing protocols as well.
The ROVR can be derived from the Bluetooth device address. However,
such a ROVR can be spoofed, and therefore, any node connected to the
subnet and aware of a registered-address-to-ROVR mapping could
perform address theft and impersonation attacks. Use of Address
Protected Neighbor Discovery RFC 8928 [RFC8928] provides protection
against such attacks.
6. Contributors
Carlo Alberto Boano (Graz University of Technology) contributed to
the design and validation of this document.
7. Acknowledgements
The Bluetooth, Bluetooth Smart and Bluetooth Smart Ready marks are
registered trademarks owned by Bluetooth SIG, Inc.
The authors of this document are grateful to all RFC 7668 authors,
since this document borrows many concepts (albeit, with necessary
extensions) from RFC 7668.
The authors also thank Alain Michaud, Mark Powell, Martin Turon,
Bilhanan Silverajan, Rahul Jadhav, Pascal Thubert, Acee Lindem,
Catherine Meadows, and Dominique Barthel for their reviews and
comments, which helped improve the document.
Carles Gomez has been supported in part by the Spanish Government
Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad through projects
TEC2012-32531, TEC2016-79988-P, PID2019-106808RA-I00 and FEDER, and
Secretaria d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i
Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 through grant SGR
376.
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
8. Appendix A: Bluetooth LE connection establishment example
This appendix provides an example of Bluetooth LE connection
establishment and use of IPSP roles in an IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE
links that uses dynamic configuration. The example follows text in
Section 3.3.2, item 3.b).
The example assumes a network with one 6LBR, two 6LRs and three 6LNs,
as shown in Figure 3. Connectivity between the 6LNs and the 6LBR is
only possible via the 6LRs.
The following text describes the different steps as time evolves, in
the example. Note that other sequences of events that may lead to
the same final scenario are also possible.
At the beginning, the 6LBR starts running as an IPSP Router, whereas
the rest of devices are not yet initialized (Step 1). Next, the 6LRs
start running as IPSP Nodes, i.e., they use Bluetooth LE
advertisement packets to announce their presence and support of IPv6
capabilities (Step 2). The 6LBR (already running as an IPSP Router)
discovers the presence of the 6LRs and establishes one Bluetooth LE
connection with each 6LR (Step 3). After establishment of those link
layer connections (and after reception of Router Advertisements from
the 6LBR), Step 4, the 6LRs start operating as routers, and also
initiate the IPSP Router role (note: whether the IPSP Node role is
kept running simultaneously is an implementation decision). Then,
6LNs start running the IPSP Node role (Step 5). Finally, the 6LRs
discover presence of the 6LNs and establish connections with the
latter (Step 6).
Step 1
******
6LBR
(IPSP: Router)
6LR 6LR
(not initialized) (not initialized)
6LN 6LN 6LN
(not initialized) (not initialized) (not initialized)
Step 2
******
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
6LBR
(IPSP: Router)
6LR 6LR
(IPSP: Node) (IPSP: Node)
6LN 6LN 6LN
(not initialized) (not initialized) (not initialized)
Step 3
******
6LBR
(IPSP: Router)
Bluetooth LE connection --> / \
/ \
6LR 6LR
(IPSP: Node) (IPSP: Node)
6LN 6LN 6LN
(not initialized) (not initialized) (not initialized)
Step 4
******
6LBR
(IPSP: Router)
/ \
/ \
6LR 6LR
(IPSP: Router) (IPSP: Router)
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
6LN 6LN 6LN
(not initialized) (not initialized) (not initialized)
Step 5
******
6LBR
(IPSP: Router)
/ \
/ \
6LR 6LR
(IPSP: Router) (IPSP: Router)
6LN 6LN 6LN
(IPSP: Node) (IPSP: Node) (IPSP: Node)
Step 6
******
6LBR
(IPSP: Router)
/ \
/ \
6LR 6LR
(IPSP: Router) (IPSP: Router)
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
6LN 6LN 6LN
(IPSP: Node) (IPSP: Node) (IPSP: Node)
Figure 3: An example of connection establishment and use of IPSP
roles in an IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE links.
9. Appendix B: Node joining procedure
This appendix provides a diagram that illustrates the node joining
procedure. First of all, the joining node advertises its presence in
order to allow establishing Bluetooth LE connections with neighbors
that already belong to a network. The latter typically run as a 6LR
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
or as a 6LBR. After Bluetooth LE connection establishment, the
joining node starts acting as a 6LN.
Figure 4 shows the sequence of messages that are exchanged by the 6LN
and a neighboring 6LR that already belongs to the network, after the
establishment of a Bluetooth LE connection between both devices.
Initially, the 6LN sends an RS message (1). Then, the 6LR replies
with an RA, which includes the PIO (2). After discovering the non-
link-local prefix in use in the network, the 6LN creates its non-
link-local address, registers that address with EARO (3) in the 6LR,
and multihop DAD is performed (4). The next step is the transmission
of the NA message sent by the 6LR in response to the NS previously
sent by the 6LN (5). If the non-link-local address of the 6LN has
been successfully validated, the 6LN can operate as a member of the
network it has joined.
(1) 6LN ----(RS)-------> 6LR
(2) 6LN <---(RA-PIO)---- 6LR
(3) 6LN ----(NS-EARO)--> 6LR
(4) [Multihop DAD procedure]
(5) 6LN <---(NA)-------- 6LR
Figure 4: Message exchange diagram for a joining node
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[BTCorev4.2]
Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Core
Specification Version 4.2", December 2014,
<https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/archived-
specifications>.
[IPSP] Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Internet
Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0",
December 2014, <https://www.bluetooth.org/en-
us/specification/adopted-specifications>.
[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>.
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>.
[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>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
"Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>.
10.2. Informative References
[BTCorev4.1]
Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Core
Specification Version 4.1", December 2013,
<https://www.bluetooth.org/en-us/specification/adopted-
specifications>.
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE December 2020
[RFC4903] Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4903, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4903>.
[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
Authors' Addresses
Carles Gomez
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
Castelldefels 08860
Spain
Email: carlesgo@entel.upc.edu
Seyed Mahdi Darroudi
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
Castelldefels 08860
Spain
Email: sm.darroudi@entel.upc.edu
Teemu Savolainen
DarkMatter LLC
Email: teemu.savolainen@darkmatter.ae
Michael Spoerk
Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16/I
Graz 8010
Austria
Email: michael.spoerk@tugraz.at
Gomez, et al. Expires June 10, 2021 [Page 16]
