6lowpan Working Group Z. Shelby, Ed.
Internet-Draft Sensinode
Updates: 4944 (if approved) S. Chakrabarti
Intended status: Standards Track IP Infusion
Expires: April 29, 2011 E. Nordmark
Oracle, Inc.
October 26, 2010
Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-14
Abstract
The IETF 6LoWPAN working group defines IPv6 over Low-power Wireless
Personal Area Networks such as IEEE 802.15.4. This and other similar
link technologies have limited or no usage of multicast signaling due
to energy conservation. In addition, the wireless network may not
strictly follow traditional concept of IP subnets and IP links. IPv6
Neighbor Discovery was not designed for non-transitive wireless
links. The traditional IPv6 link concept and heavy use of multicast
make the protocol inefficient and sometimes impractical in a low
power and lossy network. This document describes simple
optimizations to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, addressing mechanisms and
duplicate address detection for 6LoWPAN and similar networks.
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 April 29, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. The Shortcomings of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Mesh-under and Route-over Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Applicability, Goals and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. Optional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Extensions to RFC4861 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Address Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Host-to-Router Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Router-to-Router Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5. Neighbor Cache Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. New Neighbor Discovery Options and Messages . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. Address Registration Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. 6LoWPAN Context Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Authoritative Border Router Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. Duplicate Address messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Forbidden Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Interface Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3. Sending a Router Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4. Processing a Router Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.1. Address configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.2. Storing Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.3. Maintaining Prefix and Context Information . . . . . . 23
5.5. Registration and Neighbor Unreachability Detection . . . . 24
5.5.1. Sending a Neighbor Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.5.2. Processing a Neighbor Advertisement . . . . . . . . . 24
5.5.3. Recovering from Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.6. Next-hop Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.7. Address Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.8. Sleeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.8.1. Picking an Appropriate Registration Lifetime . . . . . 26
5.8.2. Behavior on Wakeup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Router Behavior for 6LR and 6LBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
6.1. Forbidden Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2. Interface Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3. Processing a Router Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4. Periodic Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.5. Processing a Neighbor Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.5.1. Checking for Duplicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.5.2. Returning Address Registration Errors . . . . . . . . 30
6.5.3. Updating the Neighbor Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.5.4. Next-hop Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.5.5. Address Resolution between Routers . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Border Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1. Prefix Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.2. Context Configuration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Optional Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1. Multihop Prefix and Context Distribution . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1.1. 6LBRs Sending Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1.2. Routers Sending Router Solicitations . . . . . . . . . 34
8.1.3. Routers Processing Router Advertisements . . . . . . . 34
8.1.4. Storing the Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1.5. Sending Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2. Multihop Duplicate Address Detection . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.2.1. Message Validation for DAR and DAC . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.2.2. Conceptual Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.2.3. 6LR Sending a Duplicate Address Request . . . . . . . 38
8.2.4. 6LBR Receiving a Duplicate Address Request . . . . . . 39
8.2.5. Processing a Duplicate Address Confirmation . . . . . 39
8.2.6. Recovering from Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9. Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.1. Message Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10.2. Host Bootstrapping Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10.2.1. Host Bootstrapping Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10.3. Router Interaction Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10.3.1. Bootstrapping a Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10.3.2. Updating the Neighbor Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
13. Guideline for New Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
15. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
1. Introduction
The IPv6-over-IEEE 802.15.4 [RFC4944] document specifies how IPv6 is
carried over an IEEE 802.15.4 network with the help of an adaptation
layer which sits between the MAC layer and the IP network layer. A
link in a LoWPAN is characterized as lossy, low-power, low bit-rate,
short range, with many nodes saving energy with long sleep periods.
Multicast as used in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] is not
desirable in such a wireless low-power and lossy network. Moreover,
LoWPAN links are asymmetric and non-transitive in nature. A LoWPAN
is potentially composed of a large number of overlapping radio
ranges. Although a given radio range has broadcast capabilities, the
aggregation of these is a complex Non-Broadcast MultiAccess (NBMA,
[RFC2491]) structure with generally no LoWPAN-wide multicast
capabilities. Link-local scope is in reality defined by reachability
and radio strength. Thus we can consider a LoWPAN to be made up of
links with undetermined connectivity properties as in [RFC5889],
along with the corresponding address model assumptions defined
therein.
This specification introduces the following optimizations to IPv6
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] specifically aimed at low-power and
lossy networks such as LoWPANs:
o Host-initiated interactions to allow for sleeping hosts.
o Elimination of multicast-based address resolution for hosts.
o Elimination of redirects since they are problematic on links with
non-transitive connectivity.
o A host address registration feature using a new option in unicast
Neighbor Solicitation and Neighbor Advertisement messages.
o A new Neighbor Discovery option to distribute 6LoWPAN header
compression context to hosts.
o Optional multihop distribution of prefix and 6LoWPAN header
compression context.
o Optional multihop duplicate address detection which uses two new
ICMPv6 message types.
The document defines three new ICMPv6 message options: the required
Address Registration option and the optional Authoritative Border
Router and 6LoWPAN Context options. It also defines two new ICMPv6
message types: the Duplicate Address Request and Duplicate Address
Confirmation.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
1.1. The Shortcomings of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] provides several important
mechanisms used for Router Discovery, Address Resolution, Duplicate
Address Detection, Redirect, along with Prefix and Parameter
Discovery.
Following power-on and initialization of the network in IPv6 Ethernet
networks, a node joins the solicited-node multicast address on the
interface and then performs Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for the
acquired link-local address by sending a solicited-node multicast
message to the link. After that it sends multicast messages to the
all-router address to solicit router advertisements. If the host
receives a valid Router Advertisement with the "A" flag, it
autoconfigures the IPv6 address with the advertised prefix in the
Router Advertisement (RA) message. Besides this, the IPv6 routers
usually send router advertisements periodically on the network. RAs
are sent to the all-node multicast address. Nodes send Neighbor
Solicitation/Neighbor Advertisement messages to resolve the IPv6
address of the destination on the link. The Neighbor Solicitation
messages used for address resolution are multicast. The Duplicate
Address Detection procedure and the use of periodic Router
Advertisement messages assumes that the nodes are powered on and
reachable most of the time.
In Neighbor Discovery the routers find the hosts by assuming that a
subnet prefix maps to one broadcast domain, and then multicast
Neighbor Solicitation messages to find the host and its link-layer
address. Furthermore, the DAD use of multicast assumes that all
hosts that autoconfigure IPv6 addresses from the same prefix can be
reached using link-local multicast messages.
Note that the 'L' (on-link) bit in the Prefix Information option can
be set to zero in Neighbor Discovery, which makes the host not use
multicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages for address resolution
of other hosts, but routers still use multicast NS messages to find
the hosts.
In a LoWPAN, primarily two types of network topologies are found -
star networks and mesh networks. A star network is similar to a
regular IPv6 subnet with a router and a set of nodes connected to it
via the same non-transitive link. But in Mesh networks, the nodes
are capable of routing and forwarding packets. Due to the lossy
nature of wireless communication and a changing radio environment,
the IPv6-link node-set may change due to external physical factors.
Thus the link is often unstable and the nodes appear to be moving
without necessarily moving physically.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
A LoWPAN can use two types of link-layer addresses; 16-bit short
addresses and 64-bit unique addresses as defined in [RFC4944].
Moreover, the available link-layer payload size is on the order of
less than 100 bytes thus header compression is very useful.
Considering the above characteristics in a LoWPAN, and the IPv6
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] protocol design center, some
optimizations and extensions to Neighbor Discovery are useful for the
wide deployment of IPv6 over low-powered and lossy networks such as
6LoWPANs.
1.2. Mesh-under and Route-over Concepts
In the 6LoWPAN context, often a link-layer mesh routing mechanism is
referred to as "mesh-under" while routing/forwarding packets using
IP-layer addresses is referred to as "route-over". The difference
between mesh-under and route-over is similar to a bridged-network
versus IP-routing using Ethernet. In a mesh-under network all nodes
are on the same link which is served by one or more routers, which we
call 6LoWPAN Border Routers (6LBR). In a route-over network, there
are multiple links in the 6LoWPAN. Unlike fixed IP links, these
link's members may be changing due to the nature of the low-power and
lossy behavior of wireless technology. Thus a route-over network is
made up of a flexible set of links interconnected by interior
routers, which we call 6LoWPAN Routers (6LR).
This specification is applicable to both mesh-under and route-over
networks. However, in route-over networks, we have two types of
routers - 6LBRs and 6LRs. 6LoWPAN Border Routers sit at the boundary
of the 6LoWPAN and the rest of the network while 6LoWPAN Routers are
inside the LoWPAN. 6LoWPAN Routers are assumed to be running a
routing protocol.
In a mesh-under configuration a 6LBR is acting as the IPv6 router
where all the hosts in the LoWPAN are on the same link, thus they are
only one IP hop away. No 6LoWPAN Routers exist in this topology as
forwarding is handled by a link-layer mesh routing protocol.
In a route-over configuration, Neighbor Discovery operations take
place between hosts and 6LRs or 6LBRs. The 6LR nodes are able to
send and receive Router Advertisements, Router Solicitations as well
as forward and route IPv6 packets. Here packet forwarding happens at
the IP layer.
In both types of configurations, hosts do not take part in routing
and forwarding packets and they act as simple IPv6 hosts.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
1.3. Applicability, Goals and Assumptions
This document specifies a set of behaviors between hosts and routers.
An implementation that adheres to this document MUST implement those
behaviors. The document also specifies a set of behaviors (multihop
prefix or context dissemination, and separately multihop duplicate
address detection) which are OPTIONAL to use. An implementation of
this specification SHOULD implement those optional to use pieces.
The optimizations described in this document apply to different
topologies. They are most useful for route-over and mesh-under
configurations in Mesh topologies. However, Star topology
configurations will also benefit from the optimizations due to
minimized signaling, robust handling of the non-transitive link, and
header compression context information.
The document has the following main goals and assumptions.
Goals:
o Optimize Neighbor Discovery with a mechanism that is minimal yet
sufficient for the operation in both mesh-under and route-over
configurations.
o Make the host to router interaction the same whether mesh-under or
route-over is used.
o Minimize signaling by avoiding the use of multicast flooding and
reducing the use of link-scope multicast messages.
o Optimize the interfaces between hosts and their default routers.
o Support for sleeping hosts.
o Minimize the complexity of nodes.
o Disseminate context information to hosts as needed by
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc].
o Optionally disseminate context information and prefix information
from the border to all routers in a LoWPAN.
o Optional duplicate address detection mechanism suitable for route-
over LoWPANs.
Assumptions:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o EUI-64 addresses are globally unique.
o All nodes in the network have an EUI-64 interface identifier in
order to do address auto-configuration and detect duplicate
addresses.
o The link layer technology is assumed to be low-power and lossy,
exhibiting undetermined connectivity, such as IEEE 802.15.4
[RFC4944]. However, the Address Registration mechanism might be
useful for other link layer technologies.
o A 6LoWPAN is configured to share one or more global IPv6 address
prefixes to enable hosts to move between routers in the 6LoWPAN
without changing their IPv6 addresses.
o When using the optional DAD mechanism of Section 8.2 it is assumed
that 6LRs register with all the 6LBRs.
o If IEEE 802.15.4 16-bit short addresses are used, then some
technique is used to ensure uniqueness of those link-layer
addresses. That could be done using DHCPv6, the Address
Registration Option based duplicate address detection (specified
in Section 8.2) or other techniques outside of the scope of this
document.
o In order to preserve the uniqueness of addresses not derived from
an EUI-64, they must be either assigned or checked for duplicates
in the same way throughout the LoWPAN. This can be done using
DHCPv6 for assignment and/or using the duplicate address detection
mechanism specified in Section 8.2 (or any other protocols
developed for that purpose).
o In order for [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc] to operate correctly, the
compression context must match for all the hosts, 6LRs, and 6LBRs
that can send, receive, or forward a given packet. If Section 8.1
is used to distribute context information this implies that all
the 6LBRs must coordinate the context information they distribute
within a single 6LoWPAN.
o This specification describes the operation of ND within a single
LoWPAN. The participation of a node in multiple LoWPANs
simultaneously may be possible, but is out of scope of this
document.
o Since the 6lowpan shares one single prefix throughout the network,
mobility of nodes within the lowpan is transparent. Inter-lowpan
mobility is out-of-scope of this document. When a node moves away
from the registered default router, it SHOULD first de-register by
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
sending a registration message with zero lifetime and then
registers with a new default router that is reachable. If the
node loses connectivity with the default router involunterily,
then the default router does not know the node has moved until it
runs the unreachability detection. In order to optimize the time
for detecting unreachability of a run-away node, a default-router
may use link-layer indication or configure a lower NCE life-time
value and low registration life-time value - so that it can remove
the NCE of the run-away node as soon as possible.
1.4. Optional Features
This document defines the optimization of Neighbor Discovery messages
in host-router interface and introduces the communication in case of
Route-over topology. The multhop prefix distribution by the 6LBR and
multihop Duplicate Address Detection mechansims, as well as 6LowPAN
context option are optional features for a 6LoWPAN deployment. A
guideline for feature implementation and deployment is provided at
the end of the document.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms
and concepts that are discussed in "Neighbor Discovery for IP version
6" [RFC4861] "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862],
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919],
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks" [RFC4944]
and "IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks" [RFC5889].
This specification makes extensive use of the same terminology
defined in [RFC4861] unless otherwise defined below.
6LoWPAN link:
A wireless link determined by single IP hop reachability of
neighboring nodes. These are considered links with undetermined
connectivity properties as in [RFC5889].
6LoWPAN Node (6LN):
A 6LoWPAN Node is any host or router participating in a LoWPAN.
This term is used when referring to situations in which either a
host or router can play the role described.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
6LoWPAN Router (6LR):
An intermediate router in the LoWPAN who can communicate with
other 6LoWPAN routers in the same LoWPAN. 6LoWPAN routers are
present only in route-over topologies.
6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR):
A border router located at the junction of separate 6LoWPAN
networks or between a 6LoWPAN network and another IP network.
There may be one or more 6LBRs at the 6LoWPAN network boundary. A
6LBR is the responsible authority for IPv6 Prefix propagation for
the 6LoWPAN network it is serving. An isolated LoWPAN also
contains a 6LBR in the network, which provides the prefix(es) for
the isolated network.
Router:
Either a 6LR or a 6LBR. Note that nothing in this document
precludes a node being a router on some interfaces and a host on
other interfaces as allowed by [RFC2460].
Mesh-under:
A topology where hosts are connected to a 6LBR through a mesh
using link-layer forwarding. Thus in a mesh-under configuration
all IPv6 hosts in a LoWPAN are only one IP hop away from the 6LBR.
This topology simulates the typical IP-subnet topology with one
router with multiple nodes in the same subnet.
Route-over:
A topology where hosts are connected to the 6LBR through the use
of intermediate layer-3 (IP) routing. Here hosts are typically
multiple IP hops away from a 6LBR. The route-over topology
typically consists of a 6LBR, a set of 6LRs and hosts.
Registration:
The process during which a LoWPAN node sends an Neighbor
Solicitation message with an Address Registration option to a
Router creating a Neighbor Cache entry for the LoWPAN node with a
specific timeout. Thus for 6LoWPAN Routers the Neighbor Cache
doesn't behave like a cache. Instead it behaves as a registry of
all the host addresses that are attached to the Router.
3. Protocol Overview
These Neighbor Discovery optimizations are applicable to both mesh-
under and route-over configurations. In a mesh-under configuration
only 6LoWPAN Border Routers and hosts exist; there are no 6LoWPAN
routers in mesh-under topologies.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
The most important part of the optimizations is the evolved host-to-
router interaction that allows for sleeping nodes and avoids using
multicast Neighbor Discovery messages except for the case of a host
finding an initial set of default routers, and redoing such
determination when that set of routers have become unreachable.
The protocol also provides for header compression
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc] by carrying header compression information in a
new option in Router Advertisement messages.
In addition, there are optional and separate mechanisms that can be
used between 6LRs and 6LBRs to perform multihop Duplicate Address
Detection and distribution of the Prefix and compression Context
information from the 6LBRs to all the 6LRs, which in turn use normal
Neighbor Discovery mechanisms to convey this information to the
hosts.
The protocol is designed so that the host-to-router interaction is
not affected by the configuration of the 6LoWPAN; the host-to-router
interaction is the same in a mesh-under and route-over configuration.
3.1. Extensions to RFC4861
This document specifies the following optimizations and extensions to
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861]:
o Host initiated refresh of Router Advertisement information. This
removes the need for periodic or unsolicited Router Advertisements
from routers to hosts.
o No Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is performed if EUI-64 based
IPv6 addresses are used (as these addresses are assumed to be
globally unique).
o DAD is optional if DHCPv6 is used to assign addresses.
o A New Address Registration mechanism using new Address
Registration option between hosts and routers. This removes the
need for Routers to use multicast Neighbor Solicitations to find
hosts, and supports sleeping hosts. This also enables the same
IPv6 address prefix(es) to be used across a route-over 6LoWPAN.
It provides the host-to-router interface for Duplicate Address
Detection.
o A new optional Router Advertisement option for Context information
used by 6LoWPAN header compression.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o A new optional mechanism to perform Duplicate Address Detection
across a route-over 6LoWPAN using the new Duplicate Address
Request and Confirmation messages.
o New optional mechanisms to distribute Prefixes and Context
information across a route-over network which uses a new
Authoritative Border Router option to control the flooding of
configuration changes.
o A few new default protocol constants are introduced and some
existing Neighbor Discovery protocol constants are tuned.
3.2. Address Assignment
Hosts in a 6LoWPAN configure their IPv6 address as specified in
[RFC4861] and [RFC4862] based on the information received in Router
Advertisement messages. The use of the M flag in this optimization
is however more restrictive than in [RFC4861]. When the M flag is
set a host is required to use DHCPv6 to assign any non-EUI-64
addresses. When the M flag is not set, the LoWPAN is required to
support duplicate address detection, thus a host can then safely use
the address registration mechanism to check non-EUI-64 addresses for
uniqueness.
6LRs MAY use the same mechanisms to configure their IPv6 addresses.
The 6LBRs are responsible for managing the prefix(es) assigned to the
6LoWPAN, using manual configuration, DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
[RFC3633], or other mechanisms. In an isolated LoWPAN a ULA
[RFC4193] prefix SHOULD be generated by the 6LBR.
3.3. Host-to-Router Interaction
A host sends Router Solicitation messages at startup and also when it
suspects that one of its default routers has become unreachable
(after Neighbor Unreachability Detection towards the router fails).
Hosts receive Router Advertisement messages typically containing the
Authoritative Border Router option (ABRO) and may optionally contain
one or more 6LoWPAN Context options (6CO) in addition to the existing
Prefix Information options (PIO) as described in [RFC4861].
When a host has configured a non-link-local IPv6 address, it
registers that address with one or more of its default routers using
the Address Registration option (ARO) in an NS message. The host
chooses a lifetime of the registration and repeats the ARO option
periodically (before the lifetime runs out) to maintain the
registration. The lifetime should be chosen in such a way as to
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
maintain the registration even while a host is sleeping. Likewise,
mobile nodes that change their point of attachment often, should use
a suitably short lifetime.
The registration can fail (an ARO option returned to the host with a
non-zero Status) if the router determines that the IPv6 address is
already used by another host, that is, is used by a host with a
different EUI-64. This can be used to support non-EUI-64 based
addresses such as temporary IPv6 addresses [RFC4941] or addresses
based on an Interface ID that is a IEEE 802.15.4 16-bit short
addresses. Failure can also occur if the Neighbor Cache on that
router is full.
The re-registration of an address can be combined with Neighbor
Unreachability Detection (NUD) of the router since both use unicast
Neighbor Solicitation messages. This makes things efficient when a
host wakes up to send a packet and both need to perform NUD to check
that the router is still reachable, and refresh its registration with
the router.
The response to an address registration might not be immediate since
in route-over configurations the 6LR might perform Duplicate Address
Detection against the 6LBR. A host retransmits the Address
Registration option until it is acknowledged by the receipt of a
Address Registration option.
As part of the optimizations, Address Resolution is not performed by
multicasting Neighbor Solicitation messages as in [RFC4861].
Instead, the routers maintain Neighbor Cache entries for all
registered IPv6 addresses. If the address is not in the Neighbor
Cache in the router, then the address either doesn't exist, or is
assigned to a host attached to some other router in the 6LoWPAN, or
is external to the 6LoWPAN. In a route-over configuration the
routing protocol is used to route such packets toward the
destination.
3.4. Router-to-Router Interaction
The optional new router-to-router interaction is only for the route-
over configuration where 6LRs are present. It is optional in this
protocol since the functions it provides might be better provided by
other protocol mechanisms, be it DHCPv6, link-layer mechanisms, the
routing protocol, or something else. It is however assumed that all
6LRs in a network are configured to perform these functions
homogeneously. Some mechanisms from this protocol might be used for
router-to-router interaction, while others are provided by other
protocols. For instance, context information and/or prefix
information might be disseminated using this protocol, while
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
Duplicate Address Detection is done using some other protocol.
6LRs MAY act like a host during system startup and prefix
configuration by sending Router Solicitation messages and
autoconfiguring their IPv6 addresses unlike routers in [RFC4861].
When multihop prefix or context dissemination is used then the 6LRs
store the ABRO, 6CO and Prefix Information received (directly or
indirectly) from the 6LBRs and redistribute this information in the
Router Advertisement they send to other 6LRs or send to hosts in
response to a Router Solicitations. There is a version number field
in the ABRO which is used to limit the flooding of updated
information between the 6LRs.
Optionally the 6LRs can perform Duplicate Address Detection against
one or more 6LBRs using the new Duplicate Address Request (DAR) and
Confirmation (DAC) messages, which carry the information from the
Address Registration option. The DAR and DAC messages will be
forwarded between the 6LR and 6LBRs thus the [RFC4861] rule for
checking hop limit=255 does not apply to the DAR and DAC messages.
Those multihop DAD messages MUST NOT modify any Neighbor Cache
entries on the routers since we do not have the security benefits
provided by the hop limit=255 check.
3.5. Neighbor Cache Management
The use of explicit registrations with lifetimes plus the desire to
not multicast Neighbor Solicitation messages for hosts imply that we
manage the Neighbor Cache entries slightly differently than in
[RFC4861]. This results in three different types of NCEs and the
types specify how those entries can be removed:
Garbage-collectible: Entries that are subject to the normal rules in
[RFC4861] that allow for garbage collection
when low on memory.
Registered: Entries that have an explicit registered
lifetime and are kept until this lifetime
expires or they are explicitly unregistered.
Tentative: Entries that are temporary with a short
lifetime, which typically get converted to
Registered entries.
Note that the type of the NCE is orthogonal to the states specified
in [RFC4861].
When a host interacts with a router by sending Router Solicitations
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
this results in a Tentative NCE. Once a node successfully registers
with a Router the result is a Registered NCE. As Routers send RAs to
hosts, and when routers optionally receive RA messages or receive
multicast NS messages from other Routers the result is Garbage-
collectible NCEs. There can only be one kind of NCE for an IP
address at a time.
Neighbor Cache entries on Routers can additionally be added or
deleted by a routing protocol used in the 6LoWPAN. This is useful if
the routing protocol carries the link-layer addresses of the
neighboring routers. Depending on the details of such routing
protocols such NCEs could be either Registered or Garbage-
collectible.
4. New Neighbor Discovery Options and Messages
This section defines new Neighbor Discovery message options used by
this specification. The Address Registration Option is mandatory,
whereas the Authoritative Border Router Option and 6LoWPAN Context
Option are optional. This section also defines the optional and new
Duplicate Address Request and Confirmation messages.
4.1. Address Registration Option
The routers need to know the set of host IP addresses that are
directly reachable and their corresponding link-layer addresses.
This needs to be maintained as the radio reachability changes. For
this purpose an Address Registration Option (ARO) is introduced,
which can be included in unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages
sent by hosts. Thus it can be included in the unicast NS messages
that a host sends as part of Neighbor Unreachability Detection to
determine that it can still reach a default router. The ARO is used
by the receiving router to reliably maintain its Neighbor Cache. The
same option is included in corresponding Neighbor Advertisement (NA)
messages with a Status field indicating the success or failure of the
registration. This option is always host initiated.
The information contained in the ARO is also included in optional
multihop DAR and DAC messages used between 6LRs to 6LBRs, but the
option itself is not used in those messages.
The ARO is required for reliability and power saving. The lifetime
field provides flexibility to the host to register an address which
should be usable (continue to be advertised by the 6LR in the routing
protocol etc.) during its intended sleep schedule.
The sender of the NS also includes the EUI-64 [EUI64] of the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
interface it is registering an address from. This is used as a
unique ID for the detection of duplicate addresses. It is used to
tell the difference between the same node re-registering its address
and a different node (with a different EUI-64) registering an address
that is already in use by someone else. The EUI-64 is also used to
deliver an NA carrying an error Status code to the EUI-64 based link-
local IPv6 address of the host (see Section 6.5.2).
When the ARO is used by hosts an SLLA option MUST be included and the
address that is to be registered MUST be the IPv6 source address of
the Neighbor Solicitation message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 2 | Status | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Registration Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ EUI-64 +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fields:
Type: TBD1
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option in
units of 8 bytes. Always 2.
Status: 8-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the status of a
registration in the NA response. MUST be set to 0 in
NS messages. See below.
Reserved: This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Registration Lifetime: 16-bit unsigned integer. The amount of time
in a unit of 10 seconds that the router should retain
the Neighbor Cache entry for the sender of the NS that
includes this option.
EUI-64: 64 bits. This field is used to uniquely identify the
interface of the registered address by including the
EUI-64 identifier [EUI64] assigned to it unmodified.
The Status values used in Neighbor Advertisements are:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Status | Description |
+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| 0 | Success |
| 1 | Duplicate Address |
| 2 | Neighbor Cache Full |
| 3-255 | Allocated using Standards Action [RFC2434] |
+--------+--------------------------------------------+
Table 1
4.2. 6LoWPAN Context Option
The optional 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) carries prefix information
for LoWPAN header compression, and is similar to the Prefix
Information Option of [RFC4861]. However, the prefixes can be remote
as well as local to the LoWPAN since header compression potentially
applies to all IPv6 addresses. This option allows for the
dissemination of multiple contexts identified by a Context Identifier
(CID) for use as specified in [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc]. A context may
be a prefix of any length or an address (/128), and up to 16 6LoWPAN
Context options may be carried in an Router Advertisement message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |Context Length | Res |C| CID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. Context Prefix .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: 6LoWPAN Context Option format
Type: TBD2
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including
the type and length fields) in units of 8 bytes. May be 2 or 3
depending on the length of the Context Prefix field.
Context Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits
in the Context Prefix field that are valid. The value ranges from
0 to 128. If it is more than 64 then the Length MUST be 3.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
C: 1-bit context compression flag. This flag indicates if the
context is valid for use in compression. A context that is not
valid MUST NOT be used for compression, but SHOULD be used in
decompression in case another compressor has not yet received the
updated context information. This flag is used to manage the
context lifecycle based on the recommendations in Section 7.2.
CID: 4-bit Context Identifier for this prefix information. CID is
used by context based header compression specified in
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc]. The list of CIDs for a LoWPAN is
configured by on the 6LBR that originates the context information
for the 6LoWPAN.
Res, Reserved: This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Valid Lifetime: 16-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in a
unit of 10 seconds (relative to the time the packet is received)
that the context is valid for the purpose of header compression or
decompression. A value of all zero bits (0x0) indicates that this
context entry MUST be removed immediately.
Context Prefix: The IPv6 prefix or address corresponding to the
Context ID (CID) field. The valid length of this field is
included in the Context Length field. This field is padded with
zeros in order to make the option a multiple of 8-bytes.
4.3. Authoritative Border Router Option
The optional Authoritative Border Router Option (ABRO) is needed when
Router Advertisement (RA) messages are used to disseminate prefixes
and context information across a route-over topology. In this case
6LRs receive Prefix Information options from other 6LRs. This
implies that a 6LR can't just let the most recently received RA win.
In order to be able to reliably add and remove prefixes from the
6LoWPAN we need to carry information from the authoritative 6LBR.
This is done by introducing a version number which the 6LBR sets and
6LRs propagate as they propagate the prefix and context information
with this Authoritative Border Router Option. When there are
multiple 6LBRs they would have separate version number spaces. Thus
this option needs to carry the IP address of the 6LBR that originated
that set of information.
The Authoritative Border Router option MUST be included in all Router
Advertisement messages in the case when Router Advertisements are
used to propagate information between routers (as described in
Section 8.2).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 3 | Version Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ 6LBR Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fields:
Type: TBD3
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option in
units of 8 bytes. Always 3.
Version Number: 16-bit unsigned integer. The version number
corresponding to this set of information contained in
the RA message. The authoritative 6LBR originating
the prefix increases this version number each time its
set of prefix or context information changes. This
version number uses sequence number arithmetic as it
may wrap around.
Reserved: This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
6LBR Address: IPv6 address of the 6LBR that is the origin of the
included version number.
4.4. Duplicate Address messages
For the optional multihop DAD exchanges between 6LR and 6LBR
specified in Section 8.2 there are two new ICMPv6 message types
called the Duplicate Address Request (DAR) and Duplicate Address
Confirmation (DAC). We avoid reusing the Neighbor Solicitation and
Neighbor Advertisement messages for this purpose since these messages
are not subject to the hop limit=255 check as they are forwarded by
intermediate 6LRs. The information contained in the messages are
otherwise the same as would be in a Neighbor Solicitation carrying a
Address Registration option, with the message format inlining the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
fields that are in the ARO.
The DAR and DAC use the same message format with different ICMPv6
type values, and the Status field is only meaningful in the DAC
message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status | Reserved | Registration Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ EUI-64 +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Registered Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP fields:
IPv6 source: A non link-local address of the sending router.
IPv6 destination: A non link-local address of the sending router.
In a DAC this is just the source from the DAR.
Hop Limit: Set to MULTIHOP_HOPLIMIT on transmit. MUST be ignored
on receipt.
ICMP Fields:
Type: TBD4 for DAR and TBD5 for DAC
Code: Set to zero on transmit. MUST be ignored on receipt.
Checksum: The ICMP checksum. See [RFC4443].
Status: 8-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the status of a
registration in the DAC. MUST be set to 0 in DAR.
See Table 1.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
Reserved: This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Registration Lifetime: 16-bit unsigned integer. The amount of time
in a unit of 10 seconds that the router should retain
the Neighbor Cache entry for the sender of the NS that
includes this option. A value of 0 indicates in an NS
that the neighbor cache entry should be removed.
EUI-64: 64 bits. This field is used to uniquely identify the
interface of the registered address by including the
EUI-64 identifier [EUI64] assigned to it unmodified.
Registered Address: 128-bit field. Carries the host address, which
was contained in the IPv6 Source field in the NS that
contained the ARO option sent by the host.
5. Host Behavior
Hosts in a LoWPAN use the Address Registration option in the Neighbor
Solicitation messages they send as a way to maintain the Neighbor
Cache in the routers thereby removing the need for multicast Neighbor
Solicitations to do address resolution. Unlike in [RFC4861] the
hosts initiate updating the information they receive in Router
Advertisements by sending Router Solicitations before the information
expires. Finally, when Neighbor Unreachability Detection indicates
that one or all default routers have become unreachable, then the
host uses Router Solicitations to find a new set of default routers.
5.1. Forbidden Actions
A host in a 6LoWPAN MUST NOT accept a Redirect message. Redirect
messages are problematic on a link with non-transitive reachability.
A host would never multicast a Neighbor Solicitation message.
5.2. Interface Initialization
When the interface on a host is initialized it follows the
specification in [RFC4861]. A link-local address is formed based on
the EUI-64 identifier [EUI64] assigned to the interface as per
[RFC4944] or the appropriate IP-over-foo document for the link, and
then the host sends Router Solicitation messages as described in
[RFC4861] Section 6.3.7.
There is no need to join the Solicited-Node multicast address since
nobody multicasts Neighbor Solicitations in this type of network. A
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
host MUST join the all-nodes multicast address.
5.3. Sending a Router Solicitation
The Router Solicitation is formatted as specified in [RFC4861] and
sent to the IPv6 All-Routers multicast address (see [RFC4861] Section
6.3.7 for details). An SLLA option MUST be included to enable
unicast Router Advertisements in response. An unspecified source
address MUST NOT be used in RS messages.
If the link layer supports a way to send packets to some kind of all-
routers anycast link-layer address, then that MAY be used to convey
theses packets to a router.
Since hosts do not depend on multicast Router Advertisements to
discover routers, the hosts need to intelligently retransmit Router
Solicitations whenever the default router list is empty, one of its
default routers becomes unreachable, or the lifetime of the prefixes
and contexts in the previous RA are about to expire. The RECOMMENDED
retransmissions it to initially send up to 3 (MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS)
RS messages separated by at least 10 seconds
(RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL) as specified in [RFC4861], and then
switch to slower retransmissions. After the initial retransmissions
the host SHOULD do binary exponential backoff of the retransmission
timer for each subsequent retransmission. However, it is useful to
have a maximum retransmission timer of 60 seconds
(MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL). In all cases the RS retransmissions
are terminated when a RA is received.
5.4. Processing a Router Advertisement
The processing of Router Advertisements is as in [RFC4861] with the
addition of handling the 6LoWPAN Context option and triggering
address registration when a new address has been configured.
Furthermore, the SLLA option MUST be included in the RA. Unlike in
[RFC4861], the maximum value of the RA Router Lifetime field MAY be
up to 0xFFFF (approximately 18 hours).
Should the host erroneously receive a Prefix Information option with
the 'L' (on-link) flag set, then that Prefix Information Option (PIO)
MUST be ignored.
5.4.1. Address configuration
Address configuration follows [RFC4862]. For an address not derived
from an EUI-64, the M flag of the RA determines how the address can
be configured. If the M flag is set in the RA, then DHCPv6 MUST be
used to assign the address. If the M flag is not set, then the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
address can be configured by any other means (and duplicate detection
is performed as part of the registration process).
Once an address has been configured it will be registered by
unicasting a Neighbor Solicitation with the Address Registration
option to one or more routers.
5.4.2. Storing Contexts
The host maintains a conceptual data structure for the context
information it receives from the routers, which is called the Context
Table. This includes the Context ID, the prefix (from the Context
Prefix field in the 6CO), the Compression bit, and the Valid
Lifetime. A Context Table entry that has the Compression bit clear
is used for decompression when receiving packets, but MUST NOT be
used for compression when sending packets.
When a 6CO option is received in a Router Advertisement it is used to
add or update the information in the Context Table. If the Context
ID field in the 6CO matches an existing Context Table entry, then
that entry is updated with the information in the 6CO. If the Valid
Lifetime field in the 6CO is zero, then the entry is immediately
deleted.
If there is no matching entry in the Context Table, and the Valid
Lifetime field is non-zero, then a new context is added to the
Context Table. The 6CO is used to update the created entry.
When the 6LBR changes the context information a host might not
immediately notice. And in the worst case a host might have stale
context information. For this reason 6LBRs use the recommendations
in Section 7.2 for carefully managing the context lifecycle. Nodes
should be careful about using header compression in RA messages that
include 6COs.
5.4.3. Maintaining Prefix and Context Information
The prefix information is timed out as specified in [RFC4861]. When
the Valid Lifetime for a Context Table entry expires the entry is
deleted.
A host should inspect the various lifetimes to determine when it
should next initiate sending a Router Solicitation to ask for any
updates to the information. The lifetimes that matter are the
Default Router lifetime, the Valid Lifetime in the Prefix Information
options, and the Valid Lifetime in the 6CO. The host SHOULD unicast
one or more Router Solicitations to the router well before the
minimum of those lifetimes (across all the prefixes and all the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
contexts) expire, and switch to multicast RS messages if there is no
response to the unicasts. The retransmission behavior for the Router
Solicitations is specified in section Section 5.3.
5.5. Registration and Neighbor Unreachability Detection
Hosts send Unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages to register
their IPv6 addresses, and also to do NUD to verify that their default
routers are still reachable. The registration is performed by the
host including an ARO in the Neighbor Solicitation it sends. Even if
the host doesn't have data to send, but is expecting others to try to
send packets to the host, the host needs to maintain its Neighbor
Cache entries in the routers. This is done by sending NS messages
with the ARO to the router well in advance of the registration
lifetime expiring. NS messages are retransmitted up to
MAX_UNICAST_SOLICIT times using a minimum timeout of RETRANS_TIMER
until the host receives an Neighbor Advertisement message with an ARO
option.
Hosts that receive Router Advertisement messages from multiple
default routers SHOULD attempt to register with more than one of them
in order to increase the robustness of the network.
Note that Neighbor Unreachability Detection probes can be suppressed
by Reachability Confirmations from transport protocols or
applications as specified in [RFC4861].
When a host knows it will no longer use a router it is registered, it
SHOULD de-register with the router by sending an NS with an ARO
containing a lifetime of 0.
5.5.1. Sending a Neighbor Solicitation
The host triggers sending Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages
containing an ARO when a new address is configured, when it discovers
a new default router, or well before the Registration Lifetime
expires. Such an NS MUST include a Source Link-Layer Address (SLLA)
option, since the router needs to record the link-layer address of
the host. An unspecified source address MUST NOT be used in NS
messages.
5.5.2. Processing a Neighbor Advertisement
A host handles Neighbor Advertisement messages as specified in
[RFC4861], with added logic described in this section for handling
the Address Registration option.
In addition to the normal validation of a Neighbor Advertisement and
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
its options, the Address Registration option is verified as follows
(if present). If the Length field is not two, the option is silently
ignored. If the EUI-64 field does not match the EUI-64 of the
interface, the option is silently ignored.
If the status field is zero, then the address registration was
successful. The host saves the Registration Lifetime from the
Address Registration option for use to trigger a new NS well before
the lifetime expires. If the Status field is not equal to zero, the
address registration has failed.
5.5.3. Recovering from Failures
The procedure for maintaining reachability information about a
neighbor is the same as in [RFC4861] Section 7.3 with the exception
that address resolution is not performed.
The address registration procedure may fail for two reasons: no
response to Neighbor Solicitations is received (NUD failure), or an
Address Registration option with a failure Status (Status > 0) is
received. In the case of NUD failure the entry for that router will
be removed thus address registration is no longer of importance.
When an Address Registration option with a non-zero Status field is
received this indicates that registration for that address has
failed. A failure Status of one indicates that a duplicate address
was detected and the procedure described in [RFC4862] Section 5.4.5
is followed. The host MUST NOT use the address it tried to register.
If the host has valid registrations with other routers, these MUST be
removed by registering with each using a zero ARO lifetime.
A Status code of two indicates that the Neighbor Cache of that router
is full. In this case the host SHOULD remove this router from its
default router list and attempt to register with another router. If
the host has no more default routers it needs to revert to sending
Router Solicitations as specified in section Section 5.3.
Other failure codes may be defined in future documents.
5.6. Next-hop Determination
The IP address of the next-hop for a destination is determined as
follows. Destinations to the link-local prefix (FE80::) are always
sent on the link to that destination. It is assumed that link-local
addresses are formed as specified in Section 5.2 from the EUI-64, and
address resolution is not performed.
All other prefixes are assumed to be off-link [RFC5889]. Anycast
addresses are always considered to be off-link. They are therefore
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
sent to one of the routers in the Default Router List.
Multicast addresses are considered to be on-link and are resolved as
specified in [RFC4944] or the appropriate IP-over-foo document.
A LoWPAN Node is not required to maintain a minimum of one buffer per
neighbor as specified in [RFC4861], since packets are never queued
while waiting for address resolution.
5.7. Address Resolution
The address registration mechanism and the SLLA option in Router
Advertisement messages provide sufficient a priori state in routers
and hosts to resolve an IPv6 address to its associated link-layer
address. As all prefixes but the link-local prefix are always
assumed to be off-link, multicast-based address resolution between
neighbors is not needed.
Link-layer addresses for neighbors are stored in Neighbor Cache
entries [RFC4861]. In order to achieve LoWPAN compression, most
global addresses are formed using a link-layer address. Thus a host
can minimize memory usage by optimizing for this case and only
storing link-layer address information if it differs from the link-
layer address corresponding to the Interface ID of the IPv6 address
(i.e., differs in more than the on-link/global bit being inverted).
5.8. Sleeping
It is often advantageous for battery-powered hosts in LoWPANs to keep
a low duty cycle. The optimizations described in this document
enable hosts to sleep as described further in this section. Routers
may want to cache traffic destined to a host which is sleeping, but
such functionality is out of the scope of this document.
5.8.1. Picking an Appropriate Registration Lifetime
As all Neighbor Discovery messages are initiated by the hosts, this
allows a host to sleep or otherwise be unreachable between NS/NA
message exchanges. The Address Registration option attached to NS
messages indicates to a router to keep the Neighbor Cache entry for
that address valid for the period in the Registration Lifetime field.
A host should choose a sleep time appropriate for its energy
characteristics, and set a registration lifetime larger than the
sleep time to ensure the registration is renewed successfully
(considering e.g. clock drift and additional time for potential
retransmissions of the re-registration). A host should also consider
the stability of the network (how quickly the topology changes) when
choosing its sleep time (and thus registration lifetime). A dynamic
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
network requires a shorter sleep time so that routers don't keep
invalid neighbor cache entries for nodes longer than necessary.
5.8.2. Behavior on Wakeup
When a host wakes up from a sleep period it SHOULD maintain its
current address registrations that will timeout before the next
wakeup. This is done by sending Neighbor Solicitation messages with
the Address Registration option as described in Section 5.5.1. The
host may also need to refresh its prefix and context information by
sending a new unicast Router Solicitation (the maximum Router
Lifetime is about 18 hours whereas the maximum Registration lifetime
is about 7 days). If after wakeup the host (using NUD) determines
that some or all previous default routers have become unreachable,
then the host will send multicast Router Solicitations to discover
new default router(s) and restart the address registration process.
6. Router Behavior for 6LR and 6LBR
Both 6LRs and 6LBRs maintain the Neighbor Cache [RFC4861] based on
the Address Registration Options they receive in Neighbor
Advertisement messages from hosts, Neighbor Discovery packets from
other nodes, and potentially a routing protocol used in the 6LoWPAN
as outlined in Section 3.5.
The routers SHOULD NOT garbage collect Registered Neighbor Cache
entries (see Section 3.4) since they need to retain them until the
Registration Lifetime expires. Similarly, if Neighbor Unreachability
Detection on the router determines that the host is UNREACHABLE
(based on the logic in [RFC4861]), the Neighbor Cache entry SHOULD
NOT be deleted but be retained until the Registration Lifetime
expires. A renewed ARO should mark the cache entry as STALE. Thus
for 6LoWPAN Routers the Neighbor Cache doesn't behave like a cache.
Instead it behaves as a registry of all the host addresses that are
attached to the Router.
Routers MAY implement the Default Router Preferences [RFC4191] and
use that to indicate to the host whether the router is a 6LBR or a
6LR. If this is implemented then 6LRs with no route to a border
router MUST set Prf to (11) for low preference, other 6LRs MUST set
Prf to (00) for normal preference, and 6LBRs MUST set Prf to (01) for
high preference.
6.1. Forbidden Actions
A router SHOULD NOT send Redirect messages. Since the link has non-
transitive reachability the router has no way to determine that the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
recipient of a Redirect message can reach the link-layer address.
A router MUST NOT set the 'L' (on-link) flag in the Prefix
Information options, since that might trigger hosts to send multicast
Neighbor Solicitations.
6.2. Interface Initialization
A router initializes its interface more or less as in [RFC4861].
However, a 6LR might want to wait to make its interfaces advertising
(implicitly keeping the AdvSendAdvertisements flag clear) until it
has received the prefix(es) and context information from its 6LBR.
That is independent of whether prefixes and context information is
disseminated using the methods specified in this document, or using
some other method.
6.3. Processing a Router Solicitation
A router processes Router Solicitation messages as specified in
[RFC4861]. The differences relate to the inclusion of Authoritative
Border Router options in the Router Advertisement (RA) messages, and
the exclusive use of unicast Router Advertisements. If a 6LR has
received an ABRO from a 6LBR, then it will include that option
unmodified in the Router Advertisement messages it sends. And if the
6LR has received RAs, whether with the same prefixes and context
information or different, from a different 6LBR, then it will need to
keep those prefixes and context information separately so that the
RAs the 6LR sends will maintain the association between the ABRO and
the prefixes and context information. The router can tell which 6LBR
originated the prefixes and context information from the 6LBR Address
field in the ABRO. When a router has information tied to multiple
ABROs, a single RS will result in multiple RAs each containing a
different ABRO.
A Router Solicitation might be received from a host that has not yet
registered its address with the router. Thus the router MUST NOT
modify an existing Neighbor Cache entry based on the SLLA option from
the Router Solicitation. However, a router MAY create a Tentative
Neighbor Cache entry based on the SLLA option. Such a Tentative
Neighbor Cache entry SHOULD be timed out in TENTATIVE_NCE_LIFETIME
seconds unless a registration converts it into a Registered NCE.
A 6LR or 6LBR MUST include a Source Link-layer address option in the
Router Advertisements it sends. That is required so that the hosts
will know the link-layer address of the router. Unlike in [RFC4861],
the maximum value of the RA Router Lifetime field MAY be up to 0xFFFF
(approximately 18 hours).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
Unlike [RFC4861] which suggests multicast Router Advertisements, this
specification optimizes the exchange by always unicasting RAs in
response to RSs. This is possible since the RS always includes a
SLLA option, which is used by the router to unicast the RA.
6.4. Periodic Router Advertisements
A router does not need to send any periodic Router Advertisement
messages since the hosts will solicit updated information by sending
Router Solicitations before the lifetimes expire.
However, if the routers use Router Advertisements to optionally
distribute prefix and/or context information across a route-over
topology, that might require periodic Router Advertisement messages.
Such RAs are sent using the configurable MinRtrAdvInterval and
MaxRtrAdvInterval as per [RFC4861].
6.5. Processing a Neighbor Solicitation
A router handles Neighbor Solicitation messages as specified in
[RFC4861], with added logic described in this section for handling
the Address Registration option.
In addition to the normal validation of a Neighbor Solicitation and
its options, the Address Registration option is verified as follows
(if present). If the Length field is not two, or if the Status field
is not zero, then the Neighbor Solicitation is silently ignored.
If the source address of the NS is the unspecified address, or if no
SLLA option is included, then any included ARO is ignored, that is,
the NS is processed as if it did not contain an ARO.
6.5.1. Checking for Duplicates
If the NS contains a valid ARO, then the router inspects its Neighbor
Cache on the arriving interface to see if it is a duplicate. If
there is no Neighbor Cache entry for the IPv6 source address of the
NS, then it isn't a duplicate. If there is such a Neighbor Cache
entry and the EUI-64 is the same, then it isn't a duplicate either.
Otherwise it is a duplicate address. Note that if multihop DAD
(Section 8.2) is used then the checks are slightly different to take
into account Tentative Neighbor Cache entries. In the case it is a
duplicate address then the router responds with a unicast Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) message with the ARO Status field set to one (to
indicate the address is a duplicate) as described in Section 6.5.2.
In this case there is no modification to the Neighbor Cache.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
6.5.2. Returning Address Registration Errors
Address registration errors are not sent back to the source address
of the NS due to a possible risk of L2 address collision. Instead
the NA is sent to the link-local IPv6 address with the IID part
derived from the EUI-64 field of the ARO as per [RFC4944]. In
particular, this means that the universal/local bit needs to be
inverted. The NA is formatted with a copy of the ARO from the NS,
but with the Status field set to indicate the appropriate error.
6.5.3. Updating the Neighbor Cache
If ARO did not result in a duplicate address being detected as above,
then if the Registration Lifetime is non-zero the router creates (if
it didn't exist) or updates (otherwise) a Neighbor Cache entry for
the IPv6 source address of the NS. If the Neighbor Cache is full and
a new entry needs to be created, then the router responds with a
unicast NA with the ARO Status field set to two (to indicate the
router's Neighbor Cache is full) as described in Section 6.5.2.
The Registration Lifetime and the EUI-64 are recorded in the Neighbor
Cache entry. A unicast Neighbor Advertisement (NA) is then sent in
response to the NS. This NA SHOULD include a copy of the ARO, with
the Status field set to zero. A TLLA option is not required in the
NA, since the host already knows the router's link-layer address from
Router Advertisements.
If the ARO contains a zero Registration Lifetime then any existing
Neighbor Cache entry for the IPv6 source address of the NS MUST be
deleted, and a NA sent as above.
Should the Registration Lifetime in a Neighbor Cache entry expire,
then the router MUST delete the cache entry.
The addition and removal of Registered Neighbor Cache entries would
result in notifying the routing protocol.
Note: If the optional multihop DAD (Section 8.2) is used, then the
updating of the Neighbor Cache is slightly different due to Tentative
NCEs.
6.5.4. Next-hop Determination
In order to deliver a packet destined for a 6LN registered with a
router, next-hop determination is slightly different for routers than
hosts. The routing table is checked to determine the nexthop IP
address. A registered NCE determines if the nexthop IP-address is
on-link. It is the responsibility of the routing protocol to
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
maintain on-link information about its registered neighbors.
Tentative NCEs MUST NOT be used to maintain on-link status.
6.5.5. Address Resolution between Routers
There needs to be a mechanism somewhere for the routers to discover
each other's link-layer addresses. If the routing protocol used
between the routers provides this, then there is no need for the
routers to use the Address Registration option between each other.
Otherwise, the routers MAY use the ARO. When routers use ARO to
register with each other and the optional multihop DAD Section 8.2 is
in use, then care should be taken to ensure that there isn't a flood
of ARO-carrying messages sent to the 6LBR as each router hears an ARO
from their neighboring routers. The details for this is out of scope
of this document.
Optionally Routers can use multicast Neighbor Solicitations as in
[RFC4861] to resolve each others link-layer addresses. Thus Routers
MAY multicast Neighbor Solicitations for other routers, for example
as a result of receiving some routing protocol update. Routers MUST
respond to multicast Neighbor Solicitations. This implies that
Routers MUST join the Solicited-node multicast addresses as specified
in [RFC4861].
7. Border Router Behavior
A 6LBR handles sending of Router Advertisements and processing of
Neighbor Solicitations from hosts as specified above in section
Section 6. A 6LBR SHOULD always include an Authoritative Border
Router option in the Router Advertisements it sends, listing itself
as the 6LBR Address. That requires that the 6LBR maintain the
version number in stable storage, and increases the version number
when some information in its Router Advertisements change. The
information whose change affects the version are in the Prefix
Information options (the prefixes or their lifetimes) and in the 6CO
option (the prefixes, Context IDs, or lifetimes.)
In addition, a 6LBR is somehow configured with the prefix or prefixes
that are assigned to the LoWPAN, and advertises those in Router
Advertisements as in [RFC4861]. Optionally, in the case of route-
over, those prefixes can be disseminated to all the 6LRs using the
technique in Section 8.1. However, there might be mechanisms outside
of the scope of this document that can be used instead for prefix
dissemination with route-over.
If the 6LoWPAN uses Header Compression [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc] with
context then the 6LBR needs to manage the context IDs, and advertise
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
those in Router Advertisements by including 6CO options in its Router
Advertisements so that directly attached hosts are informed about the
context IDs. Below we specify things to consider when the 6LBR needs
to add, remove, or change the context information. Optionally, in
the case of route-over, the context information can be disseminated
to all the 6LRs using the technique in Section 8. However, there
might be mechanisms outside of the scope of this document that can be
used instead for disseminating context information with route-over.
7.1. Prefix Determination
The prefix or prefixes used in a LoWPAN can be manually configured,
or can be acquired using DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633]. For a
LoWPAN that is isolated from the network, either permanently or
occasionally, the 6LBR can assign a ULA prefix using [RFC4193]. The
ULA prefix should be stored in stable storage so that the same prefix
is used after a failure of the 6LBR. If the LoWPAN has multiple
6LBRs, then they should be configured with the same set of prefixes.
The set of prefixes are included in the Router Advertisement messages
as specified in [RFC4861].
7.2. Context Configuration and Management
If the LoWPAN uses Header Compression [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc] with
context then the 6LBR may be configured with context information and
related context IDs. If the LoWPAN has multiple 6LBRs, then they
MUST be configured with the same context information and context IDs.
The context information carried in Router Advertisement (RA) messages
originate at 6LBRs and must be disseminated to all the routers and
hosts within the LoWPAN. RAs include one 6CO for each context.
For the dissemination of context information using the 6CO, a strict
lifecycle SHOULD be used in order to ensure the context information
stays synchronized throughout the LoWPAN. New context information
SHOULD be introduced into the LoWPAN with C=0, to ensure it is known
by all nodes that may have to decompress based on this context
information. Only when it is reasonable to assume that this
information was successfully disseminated SHOULD an option with C=1
be sent, enabling the actual use of the context information for
compression.
Conversely, to avoid that nodes send packets making use of previous
values of contexts, resulting in ambiguity when receiving a packet
that uses a recently changed context, old values of a context SHOULD
be taken out of use for a while before new values are assigned to
this specific context. That is, in preparation for a change of
context information, its dissemination SHOULD continue for at least
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
MIN_CONTEXT_CHANGE_DELAY with C=0. Only when it is reasonable to
assume that the fact that the context is now invalid was successfully
disseminated, should the context ID be taken out of dissemination or
reused with a different Context Prefix field. In the latter case,
dissemination of the new value again SHOULD start with C=0, as above.
8. Optional Behavior
Optionally the Router Advertisement messages can be used to
disseminate prefixes and context information to all the 6LRs in a
route-over topology. If all routers are configured to use another
mechanism for such information distribution, this mechanism MAY stay
unused.
There is also the option for a 6LR to perform multi-hop DAD (for non-
EUI-64 derived IPv6 addresses) against a 6LBR in a route-over
topology by using the DAR and DAC messages. This is optional because
there might be other ways to either allocate unique address, such as
DHCPv6 [RFC3315], or other future mechanisms for multihop DAD.
8.1. Multihop Prefix and Context Distribution
The multihop distribution relies on Router Solicitation messages and
Router Advertisement (RA) messages sent between routers, and using
the ABRO version number to control the propagation of the information
(prefixes and context information) that is being sent in the RAs.
This multihop distribution mechanism can handle arbitrary information
from an arbitrary number of 6LBRs. However, the semantics of the
context information requires that all the 6LNs use the same
information, whether they send, forward, or receive compressed
packets. Thus the manager of the 6LBRs need to somehow ensure that
the context information is in synchrony across the 6LBRs. This can
be handled in different ways. One possible way to ensure it is to
treat the context and prefix information as originating from some
logical or virtual source, which in essence means that it looks like
the information is distributed from a single source.
If a set of 6LBRs behave as a single one (using mechanisms out of
scope of this document) so that the prefixes and contexts and ABRO
version number will be the same from all the 6LBRs, then those 6LBRs
can pick a single IP address to use in the ABRO option.
8.1.1. 6LBRs Sending Router Advertisements
6LBRs supporting multihop prefix and context distribution MUST
include an ABRO in each of its RAs. The ABRO Version Number field is
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
used to keep prefix and context information consistent throughout the
LoWPAN along with the guidelines in Section 7.2. Each time any
information in the set of PIO or 6CO options change, the ABRO Version
is increased by one.
This requires that the 6LBR maintain the PIO, 6CO, and ABRO Version
Number in stable storage, since an old version number will be
silently ignored by the 6LRs.
8.1.2. Routers Sending Router Solicitations
If multihop distribution is done using Router Advertisement (RA)
messages, then on interface initialization a router SHOULD send some
Router Solicitation messages similarly to how hosts do this in
[RFC4861]. That will cause the routers to respond with RA messages
which then can be used to initially seed the prefix and context
information.
8.1.3. Routers Processing Router Advertisements
If multihop distribution is not done using RA messages, then the
routers follow [RFC4861] which states that they merely do some
consistency checks and nothing in Section 8.1 applies. Otherwise the
routers will check and record the prefix and context information from
the receive RAs, and use that information as follows.
If a received RA does not contain a Authoritative Border Router
option, then the RA MUST be silently ignored.
The router uses the 6LBR Address field in the ABRO to check if it has
previously received information from the 6LBR. If it finds no such
information, then it just records the 6LBR Address and Version and
the associated prefixes and context information. If the 6LBR is
previously known, then the Version number field MUST be compared
against the recorded version number for that 6LBR. The comparison
MUST be done the same way as TCP sequence number comparisons to
handle the case when the version number wraps around. If the version
number received in the packet is less than the stored version number
(following [RFC1982] Section 3.2), then the information in the RA is
silently ignored. Otherwise the recorded information and version
number are updated.
By TCP sequence number comparison we mean that half of the version
number space is "old" and half is "new". For example, if the current
version number is 0x2, then anything between 0x80000003 (0x2-
0x7fffffff) and 0x1 is old, and anything between 0x3 and 0x80000002
(0x2+0x8000000) is new.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
8.1.4. Storing the Information
The router keeps state for each 6LBR that it sees with an ABRO. This
includes the version number, and the complete set of Prefix
Information options and 6LoWPAN Context options. The prefixes are
timed out based on the Valid lifetime in the Prefix Information
Option. The Context Prefix is timed out based on the Valid lifetime
in the 6LoWPAN Context option.
While the prefixes and context information are stored in the router
their valid and preferred lifetimes are decremented as time passes.
This ensures that when the router is in turn later advertising that
information in the Router Advertisements it sends, the 'expiry time'
doesn't accidentally move further into the future. For example, if a
6CO with a Valid lifetime of 10 minutes is received at time T, and
the router includes this in a RA it sends at time T+5 minutes, the
Valid lifetime in the 6CO it sends will be only 5 minutes.
8.1.5. Sending Router Advertisements
If multihop distribution is performed using RA messages, then the
routers MUST ensure that the ABRO always stay together with the
prefixes and context information received with that ABRO. Thus if
the router has received prefix P1 with ABRO saying it is from one
6LBR, and prefix P2 from another 6LBR, then the router MUST NOT
include the two prefixes in the same RA message. Prefix P1 MUST be
in a RA that include a ABRO from the first 6LBR etc. Note that
multiple 6LBRs might advertise the same prefix and context
information, but they still need to be associated with the 6LBRs that
advertised them.
The routers periodically send Router Advertisements as in [RFC4861].
This is for the benefit of the other routers receiving the prefixes
and context information. And the routers also respond to Router
Solicitations by unicasting RA messages. In both cases the above
constraint of keeping the ABRO together with 'its' prefixes and
context information apply.
When a router receives new information from a 6LBR, that is, either
it hears from a new 6LBR (a new 6LBR Address in the ABRO) or the ABRO
version number of an existing 6LBR has increased, then it is useful
to send out a few triggered updates. The recommendation is to behave
the same as when an interface has become an advertising interface in
[RFC4861], that is, send up to three RA messages. This ensures rapid
propagation of new information to all the 6LRs.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
8.2. Multihop Duplicate Address Detection
The ARO can be used, in addition to registering an address in a 6LR,
to have the 6LR verify that the address isn't used by some other host
known to the 6LR. However, that isn't sufficient in a route-over
topology (or in a LoWPAN with multiple 6LBRs) since some host
attached to another 6LR could be using the same address. There might
be different ways for the 6LRs to coordinate such Duplicate Address
Detection in the future, or addresses could be assigned using a
DHCPv6 server that verifies uniqueness as part of the assignment.
This specification offers an optional and simple technique for 6LRs
and 6LBRs to perform Duplicate Address Detection that reuses the
information from Address Registration option in the DAR and DAC
messages. This technique is not needed when the Interface ID in the
address is based on an EUI-64, since those are assumed to be globally
unique. The technique assumes that the 6LRs either register with all
the 6LBRs, or that the network uses some out-of-scope mechanism to
keep the DAD tables in the 6LBRs synchronized.
The multihop DAD mechanism is used synchronously the first time an
address is registered with a particular 6LR. That is, the ARO option
is not returned to the host until multihop DAD has been completed
against the 6LBRs. For existing registrations in the 6LR the
multihop DAD needs to be repeated against the 6LBRs to ensure that
the entry for the address in the 6LBRs does not time out, but that
can be done asynchronously with the response to the hosts. For
instance, by tracking how much is left of the lifetime the 6LR
registered with the 6LBRs and re-registering with the 6LBR when this
lifetime is about to run out.
For the synchronous multihop DAD the 6LR performs some additional
checks to ensure that it has a Neighbor Cache entry it can use to
respond to the host when it receives a response from a 6LBR. This
consists of checking for an already existing (Tentative or
Registered) Neighbor Cache entry for the registered address with a
different EUI-64. If such a Registered NCE exists, then the 6LR
SHOULD respond that the address is a duplicate. If such a Tentative
NCE exists, then the 6LR SHOULD silently ignore the ARO thereby
relying on the host retransmitting the ARO. (This is needed to
handle the case when multiple hosts try to register the same IPv6
address at the same time.) If no Neighbor Cache entry exists, then
the 6LR MUST create a Tentative Neighbor Cache entry with the EUI-64
and the SLLAO. This entry will be used to send the response to the
host when the 6LBR responds positively.
When a 6LR receives a Neighbor Solicitation containing an Address
Registration option with a non-zero Registration Lifetime and it has
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
no existing Registered Neighbor Cache entry, then with this mechanism
the 6LR will invoke synchronous multihop DAD.
The 6LR will unicast a Duplicate Address Request message to one or
more 6LBRs, where the DAR contains the host's address in the
Registered Address field. The DAR will be forwarded by 6LRs until it
reaches the 6LBR, hence its IPv6 hop limit field will not be 255 when
received by the 6LBR. The 6LBR will respond with a Duplicate Address
Confirmation message, which will have a hop limit less than 255 when
it reaches the 6LR.
When the 6LR receives the DAC from the 6LBR, it will look for a
matching (same IP address and EUI-64) (Tentative or Registered)
Neighbor Cache entry. If no such entry is found then the DAC is
silently ignored. If an entry is found and the DAC had Status=0 then
the 6LR will mark the Tentative Neighbor Cache entry as Registered.
In all cases when an entry is found then the 6LR will respond to the
host with an NA, copying the Status and EUI-64 fields from the DAC to
an ARO option in the NA. In case the status is an error, then the
destination IP address of the NA is derived from the EUI-64 field of
the DAC.
A Tentative Neighbor Cache entry SHOULD be timed out
TENTATIVE_NCE_LIFETIME seconds after it was created in order to allow
for another host to attempt to register the IPv6 address.
8.2.1. Message Validation for DAR and DAC
A node MUST silently discard any received Duplicate Address Request
and Confirmation messages that do not satisfy all of the following
validity checks:
o If the message includes an IP Authentication Header, the message
authenticates correctly.
o ICMP Checksum is valid.
o ICMP Code is 0.
o ICMP length (derived from the IP length) is 32 or more bytes.
o The Registered Address is not a multicast address.
o All included options have a length that is greater than zero.
o The IP source address is not the unspecified address, nor a
multicast address.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
The contents of the Reserved field, and of any unrecognized options,
MUST be ignored. Future, backward-compatible changes to the protocol
may specify the contents of the Reserved field or add new options;
backward-incompatible changes may use different Code values.
Note that due to the forwarding of the DAR and DAC messages between
the 6LR and 6LBR there is no hop limit check on receipt for these
ICMPv6 message types.
8.2.2. Conceptual Data Structures
A 6LBR implementing the optional multihop DAD needs to maintain some
state separate from the Neighbor Cache. We call this conceptual data
structure the DAD table. It is indexed by the IPv6 address - the
Registered Address in the DAR - and contains the EUI-64 and the
registration lifetime of the host that is using that address.
8.2.3. 6LR Sending a Duplicate Address Request
When a 6LR that implements the optional multihop DAD receives an NS
from a host and subject to the above checks, the 6LR forms and sends
a DAR to at least one 6LBR. The DAR contains the following
information:
o In the IPv6 source address, a global address of the 6LR.
o In the IPv6 destination address, the address of the 6LBR.
o In the IPv6 hop limit, MULTIHOP_HOPLIMIT.
o The Status field MUST be set to zero
o The EUI-64 and Registration lifetime are copied from the ARO
received from the host.
o The Registered Address set to the IPv6 address of the host, that
is, the sender of the triggering NS.
When a 6LR receives an NS from a host with a zero Registration
Lifetime then, in addition to removing the Neighbor Cache entry for
the host as specified in section Section 6, an DAR is sent to the
6LBRs as above.
A router MUST NOT modify the Neighbor Cache as a result of receiving
a Duplicate Address Request.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
8.2.4. 6LBR Receiving a Duplicate Address Request
When a 6LBR that implements the optional multihop DAD receives an DAR
from a 6LR, it performs the message validation specified in
Section 8.2.1. If the DAR is valid the 6LBR proceeds to look for the
Registration Address in the DAD Table. If an entry is found and the
recorded EUI-64 is different than the EUI-64 in the DAR, then it
returns a DAC NA with the Status set to 1 ('Duplicate Address').
Otherwise it returns a DAC with Status set to zero and updates the
lifetime.
If no entry is found in the DAD Table and the Registration Lifetime
is non-zero, then an entry is created and the EUI-64 and Registered
Address from the DAR are stored in that entry.
If an entry is found in the DAD Table, the EUI-64 matches, and the
Registration Lifetime is zero then the entry is deleted from the
table.
In both of the above cases the 6LBR forms an DAC with the information
copied from the DAR and the Status field is set to zero. The DAC is
sent back to the 6LR i.e., back to the source of the DAR. The IPv6
hop limit is set to MULTIHOP_HOPLIMIT
8.2.5. Processing a Duplicate Address Confirmation
When a 6LR that implements the optional multihop DAD receives a DAC
message, then it first validates the message per Section 8.2.1. For
a valid DAC, if there is no Tentative Neighbor Cache entry matching
the Registered address and EUI-64, then the DAC is silently ignored.
Otherwise, the information in the DAC and in the Tentative Neighbor
Cache entry is used to form an NA to send to the host. The Status
code is copied from the DAC to the ARO that is sent to the host. In
case of the DAC indicates an error (the Status is non-zero), the NA
is returned to the host as described in Section 6.5.2 and the
Tentative Neighbor Cache entry for the Registered Address is removed.
Otherwise it is made into a Registered Neighbor Cache entry.
A router MUST NOT modify the Neighbor Cache as a result of receiving
a Duplicate Address Confirmation, unless there is a Tentative
Neighbor Cache entry matching the IPv6 address and EUI-64.
8.2.6. Recovering from Failures
If there is no response from a 6LBR after RETRANS_TIMER [RFC4861]
then the 6LR would retransmit the DAR to the 6LBR up to
MAX_UNICAST_SOLICIT [RFC4861] times. After this the 6LR SHOULD
respond to the host with an ARO Status of zero.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
9. Protocol Constants
This section defines the relevant protocol constants used in this
document based on a subset of [RFC4861] constants. (*) indicates
constants modified from [RFC4861] and (+) indicates new constants.
Additional protocol constants are defined in Section Section 4.
6LBR Constants:
MIN_CONTEXT_CHANGE_DELAY+ 300 seconds
6LR Constants:
MAX_RTR_ADVERTISEMENTS 3 transmissions
MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS* 10 seconds
MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME* 2 seconds
TENTATIVE_NCE_LIFETIME+ 20 seconds
Router Constants:
MULTIHOP_HOPLIMIT+ 64
Host Constants:
RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL* 10 seconds
MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS 3 transmissions
MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL+ 60 seconds
10. Examples
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
10.1. Message Examples
STEP
6LN 6LR
| |
1. | ---------- Router Solicitation --------> |
| [SLLAO] |
| |
2. | <-------- Router Advertisement --------- |
| [PIO + 6CO + ABRO + SLLAO] |
Figure 2: Basic Router Solicitation/Router Advertisement exchange
between a node and 6LR or 6LBR
6LN 6LR
| |
1. | ------- NS with Address Registration ------> |
| [ARO + SLLAO] |
| |
2. | <----- NA with Address Registration -------- |
| [ARO with Status] |
Figure 3: Neighbor Discovery Address Registration
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
6LN 6LR 6LBR
| | |
1. | --- NS with Address Reg --> | |
| [ARO + SLLAO] | |
| | |
2. | | ----------- DAR ----------> |
| | |
3. | | <---------- DAC ----------- |
| | |
4. | <-- NA with Address Reg --- | |
| [ARO with Status] |
Figure 4: Neighbor Discovery Address Registration with Multi-Hop DAD
10.2. Host Bootstrapping Example
The following example describes the address bootstrapping scenarios
using the optimized ND mechanisms specified in this document. It is
assumed that the 6LN first performs a sequence of operations in order
to get secure access at the link-layer of the LoWPAN and obtain a key
for link-layer security. The methods of how to establish the link-
layer security is out of scope of this document. In this example an
IEEE 802.15.4 6LN forms a 16-bit short-address based IPv6 addresses
without using DHCPv6 (i.e., the M flag is not set in the Router
Advertisements).
1. After obtaining link-level security, a 6LN assigns a link-local
IPv6 address to itself. A link-local IPv6 address is configured
based on the 6LN's EUI-64 link-layer address formed as per [RFC4944].
2. Next the 6LN determines one or more default routers in the
network by sending an RS to the all-routers multicast address with
the SLLA Option set to its EUI-64 link-local address. If the 6LN was
able to obtain the link-layer address of a router through its link-
layer operations then the 6LN may form a link-local destination IPv6
address for the router and send it a unicast RS. The 6LR responds
with a unicast RA to the IP source using the SLLAO from the RS (it
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
may have created a tentative NCE). See Figure 2.
3. In order to communicate more than one IP hop away the 6LN
configures a global IPv6 address. In order to save overhead, this
6LN wishes to configure its IPv6 address based on a 16-bit short
address as per [RFC4944]. As the network is unmanaged (M flag not
set in RA), the 6LN randomly chooses a 16-bit link-layer address and
forms a tentative IPv6 address from it.
4. Next the 6LN registers that address with one or more of its
default routers by sending a unicast NS message with an ARO
containing its tentative global IPv6 address to register, the
registration lifetime and its EUI-64. An SLLAO is also included with
the link-layer address corresponding to the address being registered.
If a successful (status 0) NA message is received the address can
then be used and the 6LN assumes it has been successfully checked for
duplicates. If a duplicate address (status 1) NA message is
received, the 6LN then removes the temporary IPv6 address and 16-bit
link-layer address and goes back to step 3. If a neighbor cache full
(status 2) message is received, the 6LN attempts to register with
another default router, or if none, goes back to step 2. See
Figure 3. Note that an NA message returning an error would be sent
back to the link-local EUI-64 based IPv6 address of the 6LN instead
of the 16-bit (duplicate) address.
5. The 6LN now performs maintenance by sending a new NS address
registration before the lifetime expires.
If multihop DAD and multihop prefix and context distribution is used,
the effect of the 6LRs and hosts following the above bootstrapping is
a "wavefront" of 6LRs and host being configured spreading from the
6LBRs. First the hosts and 6LRs that can directly reach a 6LBR would
receive one or more RAs and configure and register their IPv6
addresses. Once that is done they would enable the routing protocol
and start sending out Router Advertisements. That would result in a
new set of 6LRs and hosts to receive responses to their Router
Solicitations, form and register their addresses, etc. That repeats
until all of the 6LRs and hosts have been configured.
10.2.1. Host Bootstrapping Messages
This section brings specific message examples to the previous
bootstrapping process. When discussing messages, the following
notation is used:
LL64: Link-Local Address based on the EUI-64, which is also the
802.15.4 Long Address.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
GP16: Global Address based on the 802.15.4 Short Address. This
address may not be unique.
GP64: Global addresses derived from the EUI-64 address as specified
in RFC 4944.
MAC64: EUI-64 address used as the link-layer address.
MAC16: IEEE 802.15.4 16-bit short address.
Note that some implementations may use LL64 and GP16 style addresses
instead of LL64 and GP64. In the following, we will show an example
message flow as to how a node uses LL64 to register a GP16 address
for multihop DAD verification.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
6LN-----RS-------->6LR
Src= LL64 (6LN)
Dst= All-router-link-scope-multicast
SLLAO= MAC64 (6LN)
6LR------RA--------->6LN
Src= LL64 (6LR)
Dst= LL64 (6LN)
Note: Source address of RA must be a link-local
address (Section 4.2, RFC 4861).
6LN-------NS Reg------>6LR
Src= GP16 (6LN)
Dst= LL64 (6LR)
ARO
SLLAO= MAC16 (6LN)
6LR---------DAR----->6LBR
Src= GP64 or GP16 (6LR)
Dst= GP64 or GP16 (6LBR)
Registered Address= GP16 (6LN) and EUI-64 (6LN)
6LBR-------DAC--------->6LR
Src= GP64 or GP16 (6LBR)
Dst= GP64 or GP16 (6LR)
Copy of information from DAR
If Status is a Success:
6LR ---------NA-Reg------->6LN
Src= LL64 (6LR)
Dst= GP16 (6LN)
ARO with Status = 0
If Status is not a success:
6LR ---------NA-Reg-------->6LN
Src= LL64 (6LR)
Dst= LL64 (6LN) --> Derived from the EUI-64 of ARO
ARO with Status > 0
Figure 5: Detailed Message Address Examples
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
10.3. Router Interaction Example
In the Route-over topology, when a routing protocol is run across
6LRs the bootstrapping and neighbor cache management are handled a
little differently. The description in this paragraph provides only
a guideline for an implementation.
At the initialization of a 6LR, it may choose to bootstrap as a host
with the help of a parent 6LR if the optional multihop DAD is
performed with the 6LBR. The neighbor cache management of a router
and address resolution among the neighboring routers are described in
Section 6.5.3 and Section 6.5.5, respectively. In this example, we
assume that the neighboring 6lowpan link is secure.
10.3.1. Bootstrapping a Router
In this scenario, the bootstrapping 6LR, 'R1', is multiple hops away
from the 6LBR and surrounded by other 6LR neighbors. Initially R1
behaves as a host. It sends multicast RS and receives an RA from one
or more neighboring 6LRs. R1 picks one 6LR as its temporary default
router and performs address resolution via this default router.
Note, if multihop DAD is not required (e.g. in a managed network or
using EUI-64 based addresses) then it does not need to pick a
temporary default router, however it may still want to send the
initial RS message if it wants to autoconfigure its address with the
global prefix disseminated by the 6LBR.
Based on the information received in the RAs, R1 updates its cache
with entries for all the neighboring 6LRs. Upon completion of the
address registration, the bootstrapping router deletes the temporary
entry of the default router and the routing protocol is started.
Also note that R1 may refresh its multihop DAD registration directly
with the 6LBR (using the nexthop neighboring 6LR determined by the
routing protocol for reaching the 6LBR).
10.3.2. Updating the Neighbor Cache
In this example, there are three 6LRs, R1, R2, R3. Initially when R2
boots it sees only R1, and accordingly R2 creates a neighbor cache
entry for R1. Now assume R2 receives a valid routing update from
router R3. R2 does not have any neighbor cache entry for R3. If the
implementation of R2 supports detecting link-layer address from the
routing information packets then it directly updates the its neighbor
cache using that link-layer information. If this is not possible,
then R2 should perform multicast NS with source set with its link-
local or global address depending on the scope of the source IP-
address received in the routing update packet. The target address of
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
the NS message is the source IPv6 address of the received routing
update packet. The format of the NS message is as described in
Section 4.3 of [RFC4861].
More generally any 6LR that receives a valid route-update from a
neighboring router for which it does not have any neighbor cache
entry is required to update its neighbor cache as described above.
The router (6LR and 6LBR) IP-addresses learned via Neighbor Discovery
are not redistributed to the routing protocol.
11. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861]
apply. Additional considerations can be found in [RFC3756].
This specification expects that the link layer is sufficiently
protected, for instance using MAC sublayer cryptography. In other
words, model 1 from [RFC3756] applies. In particular, it is expected
that the LoWPAN MAC provides secure unicast to/from Routers and
secure broadcast from the Routers in a way that prevents tampering
with or replaying the Router Advertisement messages. However, any
future 6LoWPAN security protocol that applies to Neighbor Discovery
for 6LoWPAN protocol, is out of scope of this document.
The multihop DAD mechanisms rely on DAR and DAC messages that are
forwarded by 6LRs, and as a result the hop_limit=255 check on the
receiver does not apply to those messages. This implies that any
node on the Internet could successfully send such messages. We avoid
any additional security issues due to this by requiring that the
routers never modify the Neighbor Cache entry due to such messages,
and that they reject them unless they are received on an interface
that has been explicitly configured to use these optimizations.
In some future deployments one might want to use SEcure Neighbor
Discovery [RFC3971] [RFC3972]. This is possible with the Address
Registration option as sent between hosts and routers, since the
address that is being registered is the IPv6 source address of the
Neighbor Solicitation and SeND verifies the IPv6 source address of
the packet. Applying SeND to the optional router-to-router
communication in this document is out of scope.
12. IANA Considerations
The document requires three new Neighbor Discovery option types under
the subregistry "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats":
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o Address Registration Option (TBD1)
o 6LoWPAN Context Option (TBD2)
o Authoritative Border Router Option (TBD3)
The document requires two new ICMPv6 types under the subregistry
"ICMPv6 type Numbers":
o Duplicate Address Request (TBD4)
o Duplicate Address Confirmation (TBD5)
For the purpose of protocol interoperability testing of this
specification, the following values are being used temporarily:
o TBD1 = 31
o TBD2 = 32
o TBD3 = 33
o TBD4 = 155 XXX
o TBD3 = 156 XXX
This document also requests IANA to create a new registry for the
Status values of the Address Registration Option.
[TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
location: http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters]
13. Guideline for New Features
This section discusses a guideline of new features for implementation
and deployment.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Section Descripttion Deployment Implementation
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.1 Host initiated RA MUST MUST
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.2 EUI-64 based IPv6-address MUST MUST
16bit-MAC based address MAY SHOULD
Other non-unique addresses MAY MAY
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.3 Host Initiated RS MUST MUST
ABRO Processing SHOULD MUST
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
4.1 Registration with ARO MUST MUST
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
4.2, 5.4 6lowpan Context Option SHOULD SHOULD
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
5.1 Re-direct Message Acceptance MUST NOT MUST NOT
Joining Solicited Node
Multicast N/A N/A
Joining all-node Multicat MUST MUST
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
? Using link-layer indication
For NUD SHOULD MAY
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
5.5 6lowpan-ND NUD MUST MUST
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
5.8.2 Behavior on wake-up SHOULD SHOULD
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Guideline for lowpan-nd new-features for hosts
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Section Description Deployment Implementation
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.1 Periodic RA SHOULD NOT SHOULD NOT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.2 Address assignment during
Startup SHOULD MUST
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.3 Supporting EUI-64 based MAC
Hosts MUST MUST
Supporting 16-bit MAC hosts MAY SHOULD
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.4, 4.3
8.1.3, 8.1.4 ABRO Processing/sending MAY SHOULD
8.1 Multihop Prefix storing
and re-distribution
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.5 Tentative NCE MUST MUST
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
8.2 Multihop DAD MAY SHOULD
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
4.1, 6.5
6.5.1 - 6.5.5 ARO Support MUST MUST
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
4.2 6lowpan Context Option SHOULD SHOULD
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
6.3 Process RS/ARO MUST MUST
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: Guideline for 6LR in lowpan-nd
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Section Description Deployment Implementation
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.1 Periodic RA SHOULD NOT SHOULD NOT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.2 Addres autoconf on
Router interface MUST NOT MUST NOT
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
3.3 EUI-64 MAC address support MUST MUST
On 6lowpan interface
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
8.1 - 8.1.1
8.1.5 Multihop Prefix distribution MAY SHOULD
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
8.2 Multihop DAD MAY SHOULD
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 8: Guideline for 6LBR features
14. Acknowledgments
The authors thank Pascal Thubert, Jonathan Hui, Carsten Bormann,
Richard Kelsey, Geoff Mulligan, Julien Abeille, Alexandru Petrescu,
Peter Siklosi, Pieter De Mil, Fred Baker, Anthony Schoofs, Phil
Roberts, Daniel Gavelle, Joseph Reddy, Robert Cragie, Mathilde Durvy,
Colin O'Flynn, Dario Tedeschi and Joakim Eriksson for useful
discussions and comments that have helped shaped and improve this
document.
Additionally, the authors would like to recognize Carsten Bormann for
the suggestions on the Context Prefix Option and contribution to
earlier version of the draft, Pascal Thubert for contribution of the
original registration idea and extensive contributions to earlier
versions of the draft, Jonathan Hui for original ideas on prefix/
context distribution and extensive contributions to earlier versions
of the draft, Colin O'Flynn for useful Error-to suggestions and
contributions to the Examples section, Geoff Mulligan for suggesting
the use of Address Registration as part of existing IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery messages, and Mathilde Durvy for helping to clarify router
interaction.
15. Changelog
Changes from -13 to -14:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o Introduced the new DAR and DAC ICMPv6 message types for multihop
DAD to avoid relying on the Length=4 checks for the ARO. This
simplifies implementing the hop limit check.
o Clarified the hop limit values for the multihop DAD messages by
introducing the MULTIHOP_HOPLIMIT constant set to 64.
o Clarified when a host should de-register from a router.
o Added a section on next-hop determination for routers.
o Removed the infinite lifetime from 6CO.
o Increased MIN_CONTEXT_CHANGE_DELAY to 300 seconds.
Changes from -12 to -13:
o Error-to solution added for returning NA messages carrying an
error ARO option to the link-local EUI-64 based IPv6 address of
the host (#126).
o New examples added.
Changes from -11 to -12:
o Version field of ABRO moved after Length for 32-bit alignment of
the reserved space (#90).
o Several clarifications were made on router interaction,
including a new section with router interaction examples (#91).
o Temporary Neighbor Cache Entry created upon host sending NS+ARO,
and SLLAO removed from multihop DAD NS/NA messages (#87).
Changes from -10 to -11:
o Reference to RFC1982 for version number comparison (#80)
o RA Router Lifetime field use clarified (#81)
o Make fields 16-bit rather than 32-bit where possible (#83)
o Unicast RA clarification (#84)
o Temporary ND option types (#85)
o SLLA/TLLA clarification (#86)
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o GP16 as source address in initial NS clarification (#87)
Changes from -09 to -10:
o Clarifications made to Section 8.2 (#66)
o Explained behavior of Neighbor Cache (#67)
o Clarified use of SLLAO in RS and NS messages (#68)
o Added new term 6LN (#69)
o Small clarification on 6CO flag (#70)
o Defined host behavior on ARO failure better (#72)
o Added bootstrapping example for a host (#73)
o Added new Neighbor Cache Full ARO error (#74)
o Added rule on the use of the M flag (#75)
Changes from -08 to -09:
o Clean re-write of the draft (re-use of some introductory
material)
o Merged in draft-chakrabarti-6lowpan-ipv6-nd-simple-00
o Changed address registration to an option piggybacked on NS/NA
o New Authoritative Border Router option
o New Address Registration Option
o Separated Prefix Information and Content Information
o Optional DAD to the edge
Changes from -07 to -08:
o Removed Extended LoWPAN and Whiteboard related sections.
o Included reference to the autoconf addressing model.
o Added Optimistic Flag to 6AO.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o Added guidelines on routers performing DAD.
o Removed the NR/NC Advertising Interval.
o Added assumption of uniform IID formation and DAD throughout a
LoWPAN.
Changes from -06 to -07:
o Updated addressing and address resolution (#60).
o Changed the Address Option to 6LoWPAN Address Option, fixed S
values (#61).
o Added support for classic RFC4861 RA Prefix Information messages
to be processed (#62).
o Added a section on using 6LoWPAN-ND under a hard-wired RFC4861
stack (#63).
o Updated the NR/NC message with a new Router flag, combined the
Code and Status fields into one byte, and added the capability to
carry 6IOs (#64).
o Made co-existence with other ND mechanisms clear (#59).
o Added a new Protocol Specification section with all mechanisms
specified there (#59).
o Removed dependencies and conflicts with RFC4861 wherever
possible (#59).
o Some editorial cleanup.
Changes from -05 to -06:
o Fixed the Prf codes (#52).
o Corrected the OIIO TID field to 8-bits. Changed the Nonce/OII
order in both the OIIO and the NR/NC. (#53)
o Corrected an error in Table 1 (#54).
o Fixed asymmetric and a misplaced transient in the 6LoWPAN
terminology section.
o Added Updates RFC4861 to header
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
Changes from -04 to -05:
o Meaning of the RA's M-bit changed to original [RFC4861] meaning
(#46).
o Terms "on-link" and "off-link" used in place of "on-link" and
"off-link".
o Next-hop determination text simplified (#49).
o Neighbor cache and destination cache removed.
o IID to link-layer address requirement relaxed.
o NR/NC changes to enable on-link refresh with routers (#48).
o Modified 6LoWPAN Information Option (#47).
o Added a Protocol Constants section (#24)
o Added the NR processing table (#51)
o Considered the use of SeND on backbone NS/NA messages (#50)
Changes from -03 to -04:
o Moved Ad-hoc LoWPAN operation to Section 7 and made ULA prefix
generation a features useful also in Simple and Extended LoWPANs.
(#41)
o Added a 32-bit Owner Nonce to the NR/NC messages and the
Whiteboard, removed the TID history. (#39)
o Improved the duplicate OII detection algorithm using the Owner
Nonce. (#39)
o Clarified the use of Source and Target link-layer options in
NR/NC. (#43)
o Included text on the use of alternative methods to acquire
addresses. (#38)
o Removed S=2 from Address Option (not needed). (#36)
o Added a section on router dissemination consistency. (#44)
o Small improvements and extensive editing. (#42, #37, #35)
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
Changes from -02 to -03:
o Updated terminology, with RFC4861 non-transitive link model.
o 6LoWPAN and ND terminology separated.
o Protocol overview explains RFC4861 diff in detail.
o RR/RC is now Node Registration/Confirmation (NR/NC).
o Added NR failure codes.
o ER Metric now included in 6LoWPAN Summary Option for use in
default router determination by hosts.
o Examples of host data structures, and the Whiteboard given.
o Whiteboard is supported by all Edge Routers for option
simplicity.
o Edge Router Specification chapter re-structured, clarifying
optional Extended LoWPAN operation.
o NS/NA now completely optional for nodes. No address resolution
or NS/NA NUD required.
o link-local operation now compatible with oDAD (was broken).
o Exception to hop limit = 255 for NR/NC messages.
o Security considerations improved.
o ICMPv6 destination unreachable supported.
Changes from -01 to -02:
o Fixed 16 != 0xff bug (ticket closed).
o Specified use of ULAs in ad-hoc LoWPAN section 9 (ticket
closed).
o Terminology cleanup based on Alex's comments.
o General editing improvements.
Changes from -00 to -01:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
o Specified the duplicate owner interface identifier procedures.
A TID lollipop algorithm was sufficient (nonce unnecessary).
o Defined fault tolerance using secondary bindings.
o Defined ad-hoc network operation.
o Removed the E flag from RA and the X flag from RR/RC.
o Completed message examples.
o Lots of improvements in text quality and consistency were made.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[EUI64] "GUIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER (EUI-64)
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY", <http://standards.ieee.org/
regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html>.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
RFC 2491, January 1999.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.
16.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc]
Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks", draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-13
(work in progress), September 2010.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756,
May 2004.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, March 2005.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, August 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft ND Optimization for LLNs October 2010
Authors' Addresses
Zach Shelby (editor)
Sensinode
Hallituskatu 13-17D
Oulu 90100
FINLAND
Phone: +358407796297
Email: zach@sensinode.com
Samita Chakrabarti
IP Infusion
1188 Arquest Street
Sunnyvale, CA
USA
Email: samitac@ipinfusion.com
Erik Nordmark
Oracle, Inc.
17 Network Circle
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA
Email: Erik.Nordmark@Oracle.COM
Shelby, et al. Expires April 29, 2011 [Page 59]
