ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Tech
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: August 13, 2020 Cisco
M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
R. Sahoo, Ed.
February 10, 2020
RPL Capabilities
draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-00
Abstract
This draft enables the discovery, advertisement and query of
capabilities for RPL nodes.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. What are Capabilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. How are Capabilities different from MOP or DIO
Configuration Option? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Capability Catagories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Capability Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Capabilities Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. ROLL Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.1. Projected Route Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.1.1. Format of Projected Route Capability . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. 6LoRH Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.2.1. Format of 6LoRH Capability . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability . . . . . . 10
3.4.4. Neighbor Cache Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.4.1. Format of Neighbor Cache Capability . . . . . . . 12
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. New option: Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. New Registry for Capabilities Flags . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
scheme. The protocol creates a DAG-like structure which operates
with a given "Mode of Operation" (MOP) determining the minimal and
mandatory set of primitives to be supported by all the participating
nodes.
This document adds a notion of capabilities using which the nodes in
the network could inform its peers about its additional capabilities/
features. This document highlights the differences of capabilities
from that of Mode of operation and explains the necessity of it.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
1.1. Requirements Language and 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
MOP: Mode of Operation. Identifies the mode of operation of the RPL
Instance as administratively provisioned at and distributed by the
DODAG root.
MOPex: Extended MOP: As defined in [I-D.jadhav-roll-mopex].
Capabilities: Additional features or capabilities which might
possibly be optional that are supported by the node.
DAO: DODAG Advertisement Object. An RPL message used to advertise
the target information in order to establish routing adjacencies.
DIO: DODAG Information Object. An RPL message initiated by the root
and is used to advertise the network configuration information.
Current parent: Parent 6LR node before switching to the new path.
NPDAO: No-Path DAO. A DAO message which has target with lifetime 0.
MOPex: MOP extension as defined in this document.
Upstream path/direction: Path or direction from the node to the Root
in a DAG.
Downstream path/direction: Path or direction to the node from the
Root in a DAG.
This document uses terminology described in [RFC6550]. For the sake
of readability all the known relevant terms are repeated in this
section.
1.2. What are Capabilities?
Currently RPL specification does not have a mechanism whereby a node
can signal the set of features that are available on its end. Such a
mechanism could help the root to advertise its capabilities and in
response also determine some advanced information about the
capabilities of the joining nodes. This document defines
Capabilities which could be supported by the nodes and handshaked as
part of RPL signaling. Capabilities are embedded as RPL control
message option as defined Section 6.7 of [RFC6550] in the base
messages of DIO, DAO and DAO-ACK signaling.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
2. Requirements for this document
Following are the requirements considered for this documents:
REQ1: Backwards compatibility. The new options and new fields in
the DIO message should be backward compatible i.e. if there
are nodes which support old MOPs they could still operate in
their own instances.
REQ2: Optional capabilities handshake. Capabilities are features,
possibly optional, which could be handshaked between the nodes
and the root within an RPL Instance.
REQ3: Capabilities handshake could be optionally added with existing
MOPs. Capabilities been optional in nature could be put to
use with existing MOPs. Capabilities and MOP-extension is
mutually independent i.e. a DIO can have a capabilities
option, MOP-extension option or both in the same message.
REQ4: Capabilities could be explicitly queried.
2.1. How are Capabilities different from MOP or DIO Configuration
Option?
The Mode of Operation (MOP) field in RPL mandates the operational
requirement for the nodes joining as routers. MOP and DIO
Configuration Option is strictly controlled by the Root node in RPL.
Intermediate 6LRs could not modify the values. Also, the MOP never
changes for the lifetime of the RPL Instance. Changes in DIO
Configuration Option are possible but are very rare. Capabilities,
on the other hand, might change more dynamically.
RPL DIO message also carries routing metrics and constraints as
specified in [RFC6551]. Metrics and constraints are used as part of
objective function which aids in node's rank calculation. A router
may use capabilities carried in DIO message as additional metrics/
constraints. However, capabilities have a larger scope and may be
carried in other messages other than DIO and can flow in both the
directions (upstream and downstream).
3. Capabilities
Handling of Capabilities MUST be supported if the network uses MOPex
[I-D.jadhav-roll-mopex].
Note that capabilities and MOPex are mutually exclusive and it is
possible for an implementation to support either or both of the
options.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
3.1. Capability Catagories
Capabilities can be divided into two broad categories:
Global Capabilities: It will include the features and capability
supported across an RPL instance. These capabilities can be
advertised by the Root or 6LRs of the DODAG. If a Node in the LLN
doesn't support a paticular global capability it may have to join the
RPL instance as a leaf node, as indicated by that individual
capability option. Example of such capabilities are Compression
Methods Supported, Support for TE paths (P-DAO).
Local Capabilities: It will include the cpabilities very specific to
a Node in the LLN. Example of such capabilities are NBR Cache
information, Routing Table Information.
Note that some capabilities can be either global or local depending
upon the context they are used ex.P-DAO [TODO: This is not clear]
3.2. Capability Control Message Option
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 = TODO | Option Length | Capabilities TLVs
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Capabilities Option
Multiple capabilities could be sent in the same message. The length
field allows the message parser to skip the capability TLV parsing.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAPType |G|I|. . . . . .| CAPInfo(Opt)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Capabilities TLV
Every capability is identified by its type and it may have an
optional Capability Info. Note that a given capability may or may
not be diseminated with additional information depending on the scope
of the capability indicated by the G bit. The first Bit of the
CAPType indicates if the capability is mandatory or optional Value of
1 indicates its a mandatory capability and 0 indicates its an
optional capability
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
G = If set indicates a Global Capability else its a local. For a
capability if it's mandatory and global bit is set then node those
either doesn't understand the capability or doesn't have this
capability should not join the DODAG as a router. All the global
capablities MUST be diseminated across the network.
I = Cap Info present
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAPLen | Cap Info(format decided by individual cap spec)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Capabilities Info
Capability Information provides additional information for the given
capability. The format of this field should be defined as part the
individual capability specification and is beyond the scope of this
document. This document provides a container format for carrying the
capability and its context information.
3.3. Capabilities Handshake
The root node could advertise the set of capabilities it supports in
the DIO message. A node could take advantage of the knowledge that
the root supports a particular capability. Similarly a node could
advertise its capabilities in the DAO message using the capability
control message option defined in this document. Capabilities
advertised by non-root nodes are strictly a subset of the
capabilities advertised by the root.
In storing MOP, the DAO message from the 6LR could contain multiple
target options because of the DAO-Aggregation. The targets of the
capabilities option are indicated by one or more Target options that
precede the Capabilties Option. This handling is similar to the
Transit Information Option as supported in Section 6.7.8. of
[RFC6550].
3.4. ROLL Capabilities
3.4.1. Projected Route Capability
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection] proposes mechanisms to compute and
install traffic engineered paths in the RPL network. It enables an
RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes based on requested
path metric, within its DODAG, along with a selected set of nodes
that may or may not include self, for a chosen duration. Projected
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
Route Capability will be used to enable this TE path calculation.
PRC will be an optional global capability. Any node that does not
understand or support the projected route functions can still act as
an LR.
The DODAG root will use projected routes capability to advertise the
support of projected routes with the possible mode of operations and
set of path metrics it can use to calculate a projected route. DODAG
root will add the PRC to DIO message so that it can disseminate the
information in entire DODAG. Router nodes in the LLN receiving DIOs
with PRC MUST forward the same into their sub-DODAG without any
change even though they don't understand or support the projected
route feature.LR will use the path metric information advertised by
the DODAG root to learn these metrics from the network and neighbors.
The same information they will use to advertise in the sibling
information option. LR will also use these path metrics information
to request traffic-engineered routes optimizing a or set of specific
network metric(s).
LRs in the network will use this capability to inform the PCE if they
can be part of a storing or non-storing or both mode of projected
routes. Here the PRC will be part of the DAO message.
The capability will convey the below information. The PRC MUST have
either of the information or both depending upon the node type.If
originator is BR, then both the information MUST be there.
I: Supports projected route for both storing and non-storing
mode.
II: List of supported path metrics that supported that can be used
to compute projected routes
III: [To Decide] Can we add the PCE address information to this?
3.4.1.1. Format of Projected Route Capability
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=0x01 |G|I|. . . . . .| CAPLen | MOP | Resvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Routing Metric 1 | Routing Metric 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Routing Metric n-1 | Routing Metric n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Projected Route Capability TLV
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
Type: 0x01.
Flags: DODAG root MUST set G bit to 1 plus LRs MUST set it to 0. I
bit will always be set to 1.
CAPLen: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of
the option, not including the Option Type and Length fields.
MOP: 3-bit field indicating the mode of operation of projected route
capability.
Resvd: 5-bit unused fields.They MUST be initialized to zero by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Routing Merric: 16 bit unsigned integer represetning the the routing
metric to be used for TE path calculation. There can be n number of
such routing metric fields. These fileds are alowed with the PRC
sent by the DODAG ROOT. LRs MUST not send routing metric information
with PRC.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x01 | Resvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Routing Metric Information
3.4.2. 6LoRH Capability
[RFC8138] introduces a new 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH) to carry
IPv6 routing information. The 6LoRH may contain source routing
information such as a compressed form of SRH, and other sorts of
routing information such as the RPI and IP-in-IP encapsulation
The transition to [RFC8138] in a network can only be done when all
nodes support the specification. In a mixed case with both
RFC8138-capable and non-capable nodes it would not be posssible to
take advantage of 6LoRH.[I-D.thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138] defines a
mechanism to control the use of 6LoRH in a DODAG by using "T" flag
bit in RPL configuration option. To assist DODAG root to decide if
it has to set "T" flag bit in RPL Configuration Option to enable
6LoRH within its DODAG, all LRs in DODAG MUST inform their support of
[RFC8138] by adding 6LoRH capability TLV to their advertised
capability control message option.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
DODAG root MUST use 6LoRH capability TLV to inform all the nodes in
the DODAG, that DODAG is [RFC8138] compliance. 6LoRH is an optional
local capability.
Any LR joining the DODAG MUST add 6LoRH capability TLV to the
capability control message option in its DAO message to inform BR
that it supports RFC8138.If received DAO message doesn't have 6LoRH
capability TLV, DODAG Root MUST conclude the target node doesn't
support RFC 8138.So if DODAG is still not using 6LoRH, it MUST
refrain from using the compression and if it is already using it, it
MUST deny the LR from joining the DODAG with proper error code.
[TODO- Need to add new Error code].
6LoRH capability is an optional capability any node that doesn't
understand or support the 6LoRH can join the DODAG if the "T" flag in
the RPL Configuration option is not set otherwise it MUST join the
network as a leaf node.
3.4.2.1. Format of 6LoRH Capability
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=0x02 |G|I|. . . . . .| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: 6LoRH Capability TLV
Type: 0x02.
Flags: LRs MUST set it to 0. I bit will always be set to 0.
Reserved: 16-bit unsigned integer, they MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver..
3.4.3. Routing Resource Capability
Storing mode of operation requires each intermediate router in the
LLN to maintain routing states' information in the routing table.
LLN routers typically operate with constraints on processing power,
memory, and energy (battery power). Memory limits the number of
routing states an LR and BR can maintain. When the routing table of
an LR or BR is full, it will either reject the new DAO messages
received or will use some replacement policy to remove a routing
entry and add the new one. Rejection of DAO messages will lead to an
increase in DAO message transmission that impacts the energy and
network convergence time. Routing state replacement leads to
downward path downtime.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
One possible way to solve problems due to routing table size
constraint is to use this information to add neighbors to the DAO
parent set.Routing resource capability can be used by LR and BR to
advertise their current routing table usage details in the network.
LR or LNs in LLN can use this information in the selection of the DAO
parent set. PCE can use this information to select intermediate
routers for the projected routes. Routing Resource is an optional
local capability.
Routing reource capability TLV can occur multiple times in the
capability control message option to advertise below possible routing
table information.
I: Master Routing Table Storing
II: Storing mode P-DAO Table
III: Non-Storing mode P-DAO
Routing resource capabablity sent in DIO message has link local scope
and it MUST not be forwarded.
3.4.3.1. Format of Routing Resource Capability
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=0x03 |G|I|. . . . . .| CAPLen | RT | Resvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Capacity | Used Per | Threshold |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Routing Resource Capability TLV
Type: 0x03.
Flags: G bit MUST be set to 0. I bit will always be set to 1.
CAPLen: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of
the option, not including the Option Type and Length fields.
RT: 3-bit field indicating the routing resource type. This document
defines 3 routing resource type.
I: Master Routing Table Storing(RT = 1)
II: Storing mode P-DAO Table(RT = 2)
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
III: Non-Storing mode P-DAO(RT = 3)
Resvd: 5-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Total Capacity: 16 bit unsigned integer representing the the routing
table size.
Percentage used: 8 bit unsigned integer representing the the
percentage of routing table space currently in use.
Threshold: 8 bit unsigned integer representing the maximum routing
table space that can be used. If the routing resource type is RT1
and used Percentage is greater than or equal to a threshold, its
siblings MUST stop using it as the preferred parent or remove it from
the parent list. If the routing resource type is RT2 or RT3 and used
Percentage is greater than or equal to a threshold, PCE MUST
recompute some projected routes by excluding this node.
3.4.4. Neighbor Cache Capability
A neighbor cache maintains neighboring one-hop connected nodes
information such as MAC address, link-local IP address and other
reachability state information needed for layer two
communication.Node density has direct implications on the neighbor
cache. In the constrained network scenario the size of the neighbor
cache will be limited. Thus there are chances that a node may not be
able to store all the neighboring nodes in its cache and use
replacement algorithms to evict some of the entries to accommodate
the new one. If the replaced neighbor has installed a DAO route on
it then it can lead to packet loss or additional address resolution
message exchange. To avoid unnecessary replacement of neighbor cache
entries neighbor cache management policy
[I-D.ietf-lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy] proposes a solution that will put a
restriction on the connectivity to immediate neighbor depending upon
the type of neighbor. But this won't solve the problem unless until
the availability of neighbor cache is not taken into consideration
while selecting the DAO parent set.
Neighbor Cache capability can be used by LR and BR to advertise their
neighbor cache size information. This capablity information has only
link scope and should not be advertised in the entire network.
[TODO-- As neighbor cache entries category is not yet standardized i
think we can't use it in capability. With categories format of the
TLV is going to chnage.]
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
3.4.4.1. Format of Neighbor Cache Capability
4. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Georgios Papadopoulos, Li Zhao for the review and feedback.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New option: Capabilities
New entry is required for supporting new Capabilities option in the
"RPL Control Message Options" space [RFC6550].
+-------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------+--------------+---------------+
| TBD1 | Capabilities | This document |
+-------+--------------+---------------+
New options
5.2. New Registry for Capabilities Flags
IANA is requested to create a registry for the Capabilities flags as
described in Section 2.1 of this document. This registry should be
located in TODO. New Capabilities flags may be allocated only by an
IETF review. Currently no flags are defined by this document. Each
value is tracked with the following qualities:
o Flag
o Description
o Defining RFC
6. Security Considerations
The options defined in this document are carried in the base message
objects as defined in [RFC6550]. The RPL control message options are
protected by the same security mechanisms that protect the base
messages.
Capabilities flag can reveal that the node has been upgraded or is
running a old feature set. This document assumes that the base
messages that carry these options are protected by RPL security
mechanisms and thus are not visible to a malicious node.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy]
Jadhav, R., Sahoo, R., Duquennoy, S., and J. Eriksson,
"Neighbor Management Policy for 6LoWPAN", draft-ietf-lwig-
nbr-mgmt-policy-03 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]
Thubert, P., Jadhav, R., and M. Gillmore, "Root initiated
routing state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09
(work in progress), November 2019.
[I-D.thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138]
Thubert, P. and L. Zhao, "Configuration option for RFC
8138", draft-thubert-roll-turnon-rfc8138-03 (work in
progress), July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6551] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6551>.
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
Appendix A. Capability Handshake Example
Root 6LR 6LN
| | |
| DIO(CS1) | |
|------------>| DIO(CS1) |
| |----------->|
| | |
| | DAO(CS2) |
| |<-----------|
| DAO(CS2) | |
|<------------| |
| | |
CS: Capabilities Set
CS1: Capabilities set advertised by root
CS2: Capabilities set advertised by node. CS2 is a subset of CS1.
Figure 8: Capabilities Option
Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
Huawei Tech
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RPL Capabilties February 2020
Rabi Narayan Sahoo (editor)
Email: rabinarayans0828@gmail.com
Jadhav, et al. Expires August 13, 2020 [Page 15]