ROLL T. Winter, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert, Ed.
Expires: November 29, 2010 Cisco Systems
RPL Author Team
IETF ROLL WG
May 28, 2010
RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08
Abstract
Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) are a class of network in which
both the routers and their interconnect are constrained: LLN routers
typically operate with constraints on (any subset of) processing
power, memory and energy (battery), and their interconnects are
characterized by (any subset of) high loss rates, low data rates and
instability. LLNs are comprised of anything from a few dozen and up
to thousands of routers, and support point-to-point traffic (between
devices inside the LLN), point-to-multipoint traffic (from a central
control point to a subset of devices inside the LLN) and multipoint-
to-point traffic (from devices inside the LLN towards a central
control point). This document specifies the IPv6 Routing Protocol
for LLNs (RPL), which provides a mechanism whereby multipoint-to-
point traffic from devices inside the LLN towards a central control
point, as well as point-to-multipoint traffic from the central
control point to the devices inside the LLN, is supported. Support
for point-to-point traffic is also available.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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 BSD License.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1. Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Expectations of Link Layer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1. Topology Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Instances, DODAGs, and DODAG Versions . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Upward Routes and DODAG Construction . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. DAG Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Grounded and Floating DODAGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.3. Administrative Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.4. Objective Function (OF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.5. Distributed Algorithm Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4. Downward Routes and Destination Advertisement . . . . . . 14
3.5. Routing Metrics and Constraints Used By RPL . . . . . . . 14
3.5.1. Loop Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.2. Rank Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6. Traffic Flows Supported by RPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6.1. Multipoint-to-Point Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6.2. Point-to-Multipoint Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6.3. Point-to-Point Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. RPL Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1. RPL Instance ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. ICMPv6 RPL Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. RPL Security Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2. DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS) . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.1. Format of the DIS Base Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.2. Secure DIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.3. DIS Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3. DODAG Information Object (DIO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3.1. Format of the DIO Base Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3.2. Secure DIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.3.3. DIO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4. Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4.1. Format of the DAO Base Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4.2. Secure DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4.3. DAO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgement
(DAO-ACK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5.1. Format of the DAO-ACK Base Object . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5.2. Secure DAO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.5.3. DAO-ACK Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.6. RPL Control Message Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.6.1. RPL Control Message Option Generic Format . . . . . . 32
5.6.2. Pad1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
5.6.3. PadN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.6.4. Metric Container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.6.5. Route Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.6.6. DODAG Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.6.7. RPL Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.6.8. Transit Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6.9. Solicited Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.6.10. Prefix Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6. Upward Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.1. DIO Base Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2. Upward Route Discovery and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2.1. Neighbors and Parents within a DODAG Version . . . . . 45
6.2.2. Neighbors and Parents across DODAG Versions . . . . . 46
6.2.3. DIO Message Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.3. DIO Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.3.1. Trickle Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.4. DODAG Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.5. Operation as a Leaf Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.6. Administrative Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7. Downward Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.1. Downward Route Discovery and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . 54
7.1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.1.2. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.1.3. Destination Advertisement Parents . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.1.4. DAO Operation on Storing Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.1.5. Operation of DAO Non-storing Nodes . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.1.6. Scheduling to Send DAO (or No-Path) . . . . . . . . . 61
7.1.7. Triggering DAO Message from the Sub-DODAG . . . . . . 61
7.1.8. Sending DAO Messages to DAO Parents . . . . . . . . . 62
7.1.9. Multicast Destination Advertisement Messages . . . . . 63
8. Packet Forwarding and Loop Avoidance/Detection . . . . . . . . 64
8.1. Suggestions for Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8.2. Loop Avoidance and Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.2.1. Source Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.2.2. Router Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9. Multicast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10. Maintenance of Routing Adjacency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
11. Guidelines for Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
11.1. Objective Function Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
12. RPL Constants and Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
13. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
13.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
13.1.1. Initialization Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
13.1.2. DIO Base option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
13.1.3. Trickle Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
13.1.4. DAG Version Number Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
13.1.5. Destination Advertisement Timers . . . . . . . . . . . 75
13.1.6. Policy Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
13.1.7. Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
13.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
13.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
13.3.1. Candidate Neighbor Data Structure . . . . . . . . . . 76
13.3.2. Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) Table . . . . . . . . . . 76
13.3.3. Routing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
13.3.4. Other RPL Monitoring Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 77
13.3.5. RPL Trickle Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
13.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
13.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
13.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
14.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
14.2. Functional Description of Packet Protection . . . . . . . 80
14.2.1. Transmission of Outgoing Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 80
14.2.2. Reception of Incoming Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
14.2.3. Cryptographic Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 81
14.3. Protecting RPL ICMPv6 messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
14.4. Security State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
15.1. RPL Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
15.2. New Registry for RPL Control Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
15.3. New Registry for the Mode of Operation (MOP) DIO
Control Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
15.4. RPL Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
17. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Appendix A. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.1. Protocol Properties Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.1.1. IPv6 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.1.2. Typical LLN Traffic Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.1.3. Constraint Based Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A.2. Deferred Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix B. Outstanding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B.1. Additional Support for P2P Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B.2. Address / Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B.3. Managing Multiple Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
1. Introduction
Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) consist of largely of constrained
nodes (with limited processing power, memory, and sometimes energy
when they are battery operated). These routers are interconnected by
lossy links, typically supporting only low data rates, that are
usually unstable with relatively low packet delivery rates. Another
characteristic of such networks is that the traffic patterns are not
simply point-to-point, but in many cases point-to-multipoint or
multipoint-to-point. Furthermore such networks may potentially
comprise up to thousands of nodes. These characteristics offer
unique challenges to a routing solution: the IETF ROLL Working Group
has defined application-specific routing requirements for a Low power
and Lossy Network (LLN) routing protocol, specified in
[I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs], [RFC5826], [RFC5673], and
[RFC5548].
This document specifies the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and
lossy networks (RPL). Note that although RPL was specified according
to the requirements set forth in the aforementioned requirement
documents, its use is in no way limited to these applications.
1.1. Design Principles
RPL was designed with the objective to meet the requirements spelled
out in [I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs], [RFC5826], [RFC5673],
and [RFC5548].
A network may run multiple instances of RPL concurrently. Each such
instance may serve different and potentially antagonistic constraints
or performance criteria. This document defines how a single instance
operates.
In order to be useful in a wide range of LLN application domains, RPL
separates packet processing and forwarding from the routing
optimization objective. Examples of such objectives include
minimizing energy, minimizing latency, or satisfying constraints.
This document describes the mode of operation of RPL. Other
companion documents specify routing objective functions. A RPL
implementation, in support of a particular LLN application, will
include the necessary objective function(s) as required by the
application.
A set of companion documents to this specification will provide
further guidance in the form of applicability statements specifying a
set of operating points appropriate to the Building Automation, Home
Automation, Industrial, and Urban application scenarios.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
1.2. Expectations of Link Layer Type
In compliance with the layered architecture of IP, RPL does not rely
on any particular features of a specific link layer technology. RPL
is designed to be able to operate over a variety of different link
layers, including but not limited to, low power wireless or PLC
(Power Line Communication) technologies.
Implementers may find [RFC3819] a useful reference when designing a
link layer interface between RPL and a particular link layer
technology.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
Additionally, this document uses terminology from
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology], and introduces the following
terminology:
DAG: Directed Acyclic Graph. A directed graph having the property
that all edges are oriented in such a way that no cycles exist.
All edges are contained in paths oriented toward and
terminating at one or more root nodes.
DAG root: A DAG root is a node within the DAG that has no outgoing
edges. Because the graph is acyclic, by definition all DAGs
must have at least one DAG root and all paths terminate at a
DAG root.
Destination Oriented DAG (DODAG): A DAG rooted at a single
destination, i.e. at a single DAG root (the DODAG root) with no
outgoing edges.
DODAG root: A DODAG root is the DAG root of a DODAG.
Rank: The rank of a node in a DAG identifies the nodes position with
respect to a DODAG root. The farther away a node is from a
DODAG root, the higher is the rank of that node. The rank of a
node may be a simple topological distance, or may more commonly
be calculated as a function of other properties as described
later.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
DODAG parent: A parent of a node within a DODAG is one of the
immediate successors of the node on a path towards the DODAG
root. The DODAG parent of a node will have a lower rank than
the node itself. (See Section 3.5.2.1).
DODAG sibling: A sibling of a node within a DODAG is defined in this
specification to be any neighboring node which is located at
the same rank within a DODAG. Note that siblings defined in
this manner do not necessarily share a common DODAG parent.
(See Section 3.5.2.1).
Sub-DODAG The sub-DODAG of a node is the set of other nodes in the
DODAG that might use a path towards the DODAG root that
contains that node. Nodes in the sub-DODAG of a node have a
greater rank than that node itself (although not all nodes of
greater rank are necessarily in the sub-DODAG of that node).
(See Section 3.5.2.1).
DODAGID: The identifier of a DODAG root. The DODAGID must be unique
within the scope of a RPL Instance in the LLN.
DODAG Version: A specific sequence number iteration ("version") of a
DODAG with a given DODAGID.
RPL Instance: A set of possibly multiple DODAGs. A network may have
more than one RPL Instance, and a RPL node can participate in
multiple RPL Instances. Each RPL Instance operates
independently of other RPL Instances. This document describes
operation within a single RPL Instance. In RPL, a node can
belong to at most one DODAG per RPL Instance. The tuple
(RPLInstanceID, DODAGID) uniquely identifies a DODAG.
RPLInstanceID: Unique identifier of a RPL Instance.
DODAGVersionNumber: A sequential counter that is incremented by the
root to form a new Version of a DODAG. A DODAG Version is
identified uniquely by the (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID,
DODAGVersionNumber) tuple.
Up: Up refers to the direction from leaf nodes towards DODAG roots,
following the orientation of the edges within the DODAG. This
follows the common terminology used in graphs and depth-first-
search, where vertices further from the root are "deeper," or
"down," and vertices closer to the root are "shallower," or
"up."
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Down: Down refers to the direction from DODAG roots towards leaf
nodes, going against the orientation of the edges within the
DODAG. This follows the common terminology used in graphs and
depth-first-search, where vertices further from the root are
"deeper," or "down," and vertices closer to the root are
"shallower," or "up."
Objective Code Point (OCP): An identifier, used to indicate which
Objective Function is in use for forming a DODAG. The
Objective Code Point is further described in
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics].
Objective Function (OF): Defines which routing metrics, optimization
objectives, and related functions are in use in a DODAG.
Goal: The Goal is a host or set of hosts that satisfy a particular
application objective (OF). Whether or not a DODAG can provide
connectivity to a goal is a property of the DODAG. For
example, a goal might be a host serving as a data collection
point, or a gateway providing connectivity to an external
infrastructure.
Grounded: A DODAG is said to be grounded, when the root can reach
the Goal of the objective function.
Floating: A DODAG is floating if is not Grounded. A floating DODAG
is not expected to reach the Goal defined for the OF.
Typically, a DAG that is only intended to provide inner
connectivity is a Floating DAG.
As they form networks, LLN devices often mix the roles of 'host' and
'router' when compared to traditional IP networks. In this document,
'host' refers to an LLN device that can generate but does not forward
RPL traffic, 'router' refers to an LLN device that can forward as
well as generate RPL traffic, and 'node' refers to any RPL device,
either a host or a router.
3. Protocol Overview
The aim of this section is to describe RPL in the spirit of
[RFC4101]. Protocol details can be found in further sections.
3.1. Topology
This section describes how the basic RPL topologies, and the rules by
which these are constructed, i.e. the rules governing DODAG
formation.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
3.1.1. Topology Identifiers
RPL uses four identifiers to maintain the topology:
o The first is a RPLInstanceID. A RPLInstanceID identifies a set of
one or more DODAGs. All DODAGs in the same RPL Instance use the
same OF. A network may have multiple RPLInstanceIDs, each of
which defines an independent set of DODAGs, which may be optimized
for different OFs and/or applications. The set of DODAGs
identified by a RPLInstanceID is called a RPL Instance.
o The second is a DODAGID. The scope of a DODAGID is a RPL
Instance. The combination of RPLInstanceID and DODAGID uniquely
identifies a single DODAG in the network. A RPL Instance may have
multiple DODAGs, each of which has an unique DODAGID.
o The third is a DODAGVersionNumber. The scope of a
DODAGVersionNumber is a DODAG. A DODAG is sometimes reconstructed
from the DODAG root, by incrementing the DODAGVersionNumber. The
combination of RPLInstanceID, DODAGID, and DODAGVersionNumber
uniquely identifies a DODAG Version.
o The fourth is rank. The scope of rank is a DODAG Version. Rank
establishes a partial order over a DODAG Version, defining
individual node positions with respect to the DODAG root.
3.2. Instances, DODAGs, and DODAG Versions
Each RPL Instance constructs a routing topology optimized for a
certain Objective Function (OF) and routing metrics
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]. A RPL Instance may provide routes
to certain destination prefixes, reachable via the DODAG roots or
alternate paths within the DODAG. A single RPL Instance contains one
or more Destination Oriented DAG (DODAG) roots. These roots may
operate independently, or may coordinate over a non-LLN backchannel.
Each root has a unique identifier, the DODAGID.
A RPL Instance may comprise:
o a single DODAG with a single root
* For example, a DODAG optimized to minimize latency rooted at a
single centralized lighting controller in a home automation
application.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
o multiple uncoordinated DODAGs with independent roots (differing
DODAGIDs)
* For example, multiple data collection points in an urban data
collection application that do not have an always-on backbone
suitable to coordinate to form a single DODAG, and further use
the formation of multiple DODAGs as a means to dynamically and
autonomously partition the network.
o a single DODAG with a single virtual root coordinating LLN sinks
(with the same DODAGID) over some non-LLN backbone
* For example, multiple border routers operating with a reliable
backbone, e.g. in support of a 6LowPAN application, that are
capable to act as logically equivalent sinks to the same DODAG.
o a combination of the above as suited to some application scenario.
Traffic is bound to a specific RPL Instance by meta-data that is
carried with the packet and associates the packet to a particular
RPLInstanceID (Section 8.2). The provisioning or automated discovery
of a mapping between a RPLInstanceID and a type or service of
application traffic is beyond the scope of this specification.
An example of a RPL Instance comprising a number of DODAGs is
depicted in Figure 1. Revision of a DODAG Version (two iterations of
the same DODAG) is depicted in Figure 2.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +--------------+ |
| | | |
| | (R1) | (R2) (Rn) |
| | / \ | /| \ / | \ |
| | / \ | / | \ / | \ |
| | (A) (B) | (C) | (D) ... (F) (G) (H) |
| | /|\ |\ | / | |\ | | | |
| | : : : : : | : (E) : : : : : |
| | | / \ |
| +--------------+ : : |
| DODAG |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
RPL Instance
Figure 1: RPL Instance
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
+----------------+ +----------------+
| | | |
| (R1) | | (R1) |
| / \ | | / |
| / \ | | / |
| (A) (B) | \ | (A) |
| /|\ |\ | ------\ | /|\ |
| : : (C) : : | \ | : : (C) |
| | / | \ |
| | ------/ | \ |
| | / | (B) |
| | | |\ |
| | | : : |
| | | |
+----------------+ +----------------+
Version N Version N+1
Figure 2: DODAG Version
3.3. Upward Routes and DODAG Construction
RPL provisions routes up towards DODAG roots, forming a DODAG
optimized according to the Objective Function (OF) and routing
metrics/constraints in use. RPL nodes construct and maintain these
DODAGs through exchange of DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages.
Undirected links between siblings are also identified during this
process, which can be used to provide additional diversity.
3.3.1. DAG Repair
RPL supports global repair over the DODAG. A DODAG Root may
increment the DODAG Version Number, thereby initiating a new DODAG
version. This institutes a global repair operation, revising the
DODAG and allowing nodes to choose an arbitrary new position within
the new DODAG version. Global repair can be seen as a global
reoptimization mechanism.
RPL also supports mechanisms which may be used for local repair
within the DODAG version. The DIO message specifies the necessary
parameters as configured from the DODAG root, as controlled by policy
at the root.
3.3.2. Grounded and Floating DODAGs
DODAGs can be grounded or floating. A grounded DODAG offers
connectivity to reach a goal. A floating DODAG offers no such
connectivity, and provides routes only to nodes within the DODAG.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Floating DODAGs may be used, for example, to preserve inner
connectivity during repair.
3.3.3. Administrative Preference
An implementation/deployment may specify that some DODAG roots should
be used over others through an administrative preference.
Administrative preference offers a way to control traffic and
engineer DODAG formation in order to better support application
requirements or needs.
3.3.4. Objective Function (OF)
The Objective Function (OF) implements the optimization objectives of
route selection within the RPL Instance. The OF is identified by an
Objective Code Point (OCP) within the DIO. The OF also specifies the
procedure used to select parents and compute rank within a DODAG
version along with potentially other DODAG characteristics. Further
details may be found in Section 11, [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics],
[I-D.ietf-roll-of0], and related companion specifications.
3.3.5. Distributed Algorithm Operation
A high level overview of the distributed algorithm, which constructs
the DODAG, is as follows:
o Some nodes are configured to be DODAG roots, with associated DODAG
configuration.
o Nodes advertise their presence, affiliation with a DODAG, routing
cost, and related metrics by sending link-local multicast DIO
messages.
o Nodes may adjust the rate at which DIO messages are sent in
response to stability or detection of routing inconsistencies from
both control or data packets (see Section 8.2 for more).
o Nodes listen for DIOs and use their information to join a new
DODAG, or to maintain an existing DODAG, as according to the
specified Objective Function and rank-based loop avoidance rules.
o Nodes provision routing table entries, for the destinations
specified by the DIO, via their DODAG parents in the DODAG
version. Nodes MUST provision a DODAG parent as a default route
for the associated instance. It is up to the end-to-end
application to select the RPL instance to be associated to its
traffic (should there be more than one instance) and thus the
default route upwards when no longer-match exists.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
o Nodes may identify DODAG siblings within the DODAG version to
increase path diversity and decrease convergence time during
repair.
3.4. Downward Routes and Destination Advertisement
RPL constructs and maintains DODAGs with DIO messages to establish
upward routes: it uses Destination Advertisement Object (DAO)
messages to establish downward routes along the DODAG as well as
other P2P routes. DAO messages are an optional feature for
applications that require P2MP or P2P traffic, in either storing
(fully stateful) or non-storing (fully source routed
[I-D.hui-6man-rpl-routing-header]) mode.
3.5. Routing Metrics and Constraints Used By RPL
Routing metrics are used by routing protocols to compute shortest
paths. Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) such as IS-IS ([RFC5120])
and OSPF ([RFC4915]) use static link metrics. Such link metrics can
simply reflect the bandwidth or can also be computed according to a
polynomial function of several metrics defining different link
characteristics. Some routing protocols support more than one
metric: in the vast majority of the cases, one metric is used per
(sub)topology. Less often, a second metric may be used as a tie-
breaker in the presence of Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMP). The
optimization of multiple metrics is known as an NP complete problem
and is sometimes supported by some centralized path computation
engine.
In contrast, LLNs do require the support of both static and dynamic
metrics. Furthermore, both link and node metrics are required. In
the case of RPL, it is virtually impossible to define one metric, or
even a composite metric, that will satisfy all use cases.
In addition, RPL supports constrained-based routing where constraints
may be applied to both link and nodes. If a link or a node does not
satisfy a required constraint, it is 'pruned' from the candidate
list, thus leading to a constrained shortest path.
The set of supported link/node constraints and metrics is specified
in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics].
An Objective Function specifies constraints in use, and how these are
used, in addition to the objectives used to compute the (constrained)
path. Upstream and Downstream metrics may be merged or advertised
separately depending on the OF and the metrics. When they are
advertised separately, it may happen that the set of DIO parents is
different from the set of DAO parents (a DAO parent is a node to
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
which unicast DAO messages are sent). Yet, all are DODAG parents
with regards to the rules for Rank computation.
Example 1: Shortest path: path offering the shortest end-to-end delay
Example 2: Constrained shortest path: the path that does not traverse
any battery-operated node and that optimizes the path
reliability
3.5.1. Loop Avoidance
RPL guarantees neither loop free path selection nor tight delay
convergence times. In order to reduce control overhead, however,
such as the cost of the count-to-infinity problem, RPL avoids
creating loops when undergoing topology changes. Furthermore, RPL
includes rank-based datapath validation mechanisms for detecting
loops when they do occur. RPL uses this loop detection to ensure
that packets make forward progress within the DODAG version and
trigger repairs when necessary.
3.5.1.1. Greediness and Rank-based Instabilities
A node is greedy if it attempts to move deeper in the DODAG version,
in order to increase the size of the parent set or improve some other
metric. Moving deeper in within a DODAG version in this manner could
result in instability and be detrimental to other nodes.
Once a node has joined a DODAG version, RPL disallows certain
behaviors, including greediness, in order to prevent resulting
instabilities in the DODAG version.
Suppose a node is willing to receive and process a DIO messages from
a node in its own sub-DODAG, and in general a node deeper than
itself. In this case, a possibility exists that a feedback loop is
created, wherein two or more nodes continue to try and move in the
DODAG version while attempting to optimize against each other. In
some cases, this will result in instability. It is for this reason
that RPL limits the cases where a node may process DIO messages from
deeper nodes to some forms of local repair. This approach creates an
'event horizon', whereby a node cannot be influenced beyond some
limit into an instability by the action of nodes that may be in its
own sub-DODAG.
3.5.1.2. DODAG Loops
A DODAG loop may occur when a node detaches from the DODAG and
reattaches to a device in its prior sub-DODAG. This may happen in
particular when DIO messages are missed. Strict use of the DODAG
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Version Number can eliminate this type of loop, but this type of loop
may possibly be encountered when using some local repair mechanisms.
3.5.1.3. DAO Loops
A DAO loop may occur when the parent has a route installed upon
receiving and processing a DAO message from a child, but the child
has subsequently cleaned up the related DAO state. This loop happens
when a No-Path (a DAO message that invalidates a previously announced
prefix) was missed and persists until all state has been cleaned up.
RPL includes an optional mechanism to acknowledge DAO messages, which
may mitigate the impact of a single DAO message being missed. RPL
includes loop detection mechanisms that may mitigate the impact of
DAO loops and trigger their repair.
In the case where stateless DAO operation is used, i.e. source
routing specifies the down routes, then DAO Loops should not occur on
the stateless portions of the path.
3.5.1.4. Sibling Loops
Sibling loops could occur if a group of siblings kept choosing
amongst themselves as successors such that a packet does not make
forward progress. This specification limits the number of times that
sibling forwarding may be used at a given rank, in order to prevent
sibling loops.
3.5.2. Rank Properties
The rank of a node is a scalar representation of the location of that
node within a DODAG version. The rank is used to avoid and detect
loops, and as such must demonstrate certain properties. The exact
calculation of the rank is left to the Objective Function, and may
depend on parents, link metrics, and the node configuration and
policies.
The rank is not a cost metric, although its value can be derived from
and influenced by metrics. The rank has properties of its own that
are not necessarily those of all metrics:
Type: The rank is an abstract decimal value.
Function: The rank is the expression of a relative position within a
DODAG version with regard to neighbors and is not necessarily
a good indication or a proper expression of a distance or a
cost to the root.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Stability: The stability of the rank determines the stability of the
routing topology. Some dampening or filtering might be
applied to keep the topology stable, and thus the rank does
not necessarily change as fast as some physical metrics
would. A new DODAG version would be a good opportunity to
reconcile the discrepancies that might form over time between
metrics and ranks within a DODAG version.
Granularity: The portion of the rank that is used to define a node's
position in the DAG, DAGRank(node), is coarse grained. A
fine granularity would make the selection of siblings
difficult, since siblings must have the exact same rank
value.
Properties: The rank is strictly monotonic, and can be used to
validate a progression from or towards the root. A metric,
like bandwidth or jitter, does not necessarily exhibit this
property.
Abstract: The rank does not have a physical unit, but rather a range
of increment per hop, where the assignment of each increment
is to be determined by the Objective Function.
The rank value feeds into DODAG parent selection, according to the
RPL loop-avoidance strategy. Once a parent has been added, and a
rank value for the node within the DODAG has been advertised, the
nodes further options with regard to DODAG parent selection and
movement within the DODAG are restricted in favor of loop avoidance.
3.5.2.1. Rank Comparison (DAGRank())
Rank may be thought of as a fixed point number, where the position of
the decimal point between the integer part and the fractional part is
determined by MinHopRankIncrease. MinHopRankIncrease is the minimum
increase in rank between a node and any of its DODAG parents. When
an objective function computes rank, the objective function operates
on the entire (i.e. 16-bit) rank quantity. When rank is compared,
e.g. for determination of parent/sibling relationships or loop
detection, the integer portion of the rank is to be used. The
integer portion of the Rank is computed by the DAGRank() macro as
follows:
DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease)
MinHopRankIncrease is provisioned at the DODAG Root and propagated in
the DIO message. For efficient implementation the MinHopRankIncrease
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
MUST be a power of 2. An implementation may configure a value
MinHopRankIncrease as appropriate to balance between the loop
avoidance logic of RPL (i.e. selection of eligible parents and
siblings) and the metrics in use.
By convention in this document, using the macro DAGRank(node) may be
interpreted as DAGRank(node.rank), where node.rank is the rank value
as maintained by the node.
A node A has a rank less than the rank of a node B if DAGRank(A) is
less than DAGRank(B).
A node A has a rank equal to the rank of a node B if DAGRank(A) is
equal to DAGRank(B).
A node A has a rank greater than the rank of a node B if DAGRank(A)
is greater than DAGRank(B).
3.5.2.2. Rank Relationships
The computation of the rank MUST be done in such a way so as to
maintain the following properties for any nodes M and N that are
neighbors in the LLN:
DAGRank(M) is less than DAGRank(N): In this case, the position of M
is closer to the DODAG root than the position of N. Node M
may safely be a DODAG parent for Node N without risk of
creating a loop. Further, for a node N, all parents in the
DODAG parent set must be of rank less than DAGRank(N). In
other words, the rank presented by a node N MUST be greater
than that presented by any of its parents.
DAGRank(M) equals DAGRank(N): In this case the positions of M and N
within the DODAG and with respect to the DODAG root are
similar (identical). In some cases, Node M may be used as a
successor by Node N, which however entails the chance of
creating a loop (which must be detected and resolved by some
other means).
DAGRank(M) is greater than DAGRank(N): In this case, the position of
M is farther from the DODAG root than the position of N.
Further, Node M may in fact be in the sub-DODAG of Node N. If
node N selects node M as DODAG parent there is a risk to
create a loop.
As an example, the rank could be computed in such a way so as to
closely track ETX (Expected Transmission Count, a fairly common
routing metric used in LLN and defined in
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]) when the objective function is to
minimize ETX, or latency when the objective function is to minimize
latency, or in a more complicated way as appropriate to the objective
function being used within the DODAG.
3.6. Traffic Flows Supported by RPL
3.6.1. Multipoint-to-Point Traffic
Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P) is a dominant traffic flow in many LLN
applications ([I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs], [RFC5826],
[RFC5673], [RFC5548]). The destinations of MP2P flows are designated
nodes that have some application significance, such as providing
connectivity to the larger Internet or core private IP network. RPL
supports MP2P traffic by allowing MP2P destinations to be reached via
DODAG roots.
3.6.2. Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Point-to-multipoint (P2MP) is a traffic pattern required by several
LLN applications ([I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs], [RFC5826],
[RFC5673], [RFC5548]). RPL supports P2MP traffic by using a
destination advertisement mechanism that provisions routes toward
destination prefixes and away from roots. Destination advertisements
can update routing tables as the underlying DODAG topology changes.
3.6.3. Point-to-Point Traffic
RPL DODAGs provide a basic structure for point-to-point (P2P)
traffic. For a RPL network to support P2P traffic, a root must be
able to route packets to a destination. Nodes within the network may
also have routing tables to destinations. A packet flows towards a
root until it reaches an ancestor that has a known route to the
destination. As pointed out later in this document, in the most
constrained case (when nodes cannot store routes), that common
ancestor may be the DODAG root. In other cases it may be a node
closer to both the source and destination.
RPL also supports the case where a P2P destination is a 'one-hop'
neighbor.
RPL neither specifies nor precludes additional mechanisms for
computing and installing potentially more optimal routes to support
arbitrary P2P traffic.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
4. RPL Instance
Within a given LLN, there may be multiple, logically independent RPL
instances. This document describes how a single instance behaves.
A node may belong to multiple RPL Instances.
An instance can be either local to a root or global. When the
instance is local, the DAG is a single DODAG that is rooted at the
node that owns the DODAGID. This is used in particular for the
construction of a temporary DODAG in support of P2P traffic
optimization between the root and some other nodes.
Control and Data Packets that traverse a RPL network MUST be tagged
in such a fashion that the instance is unambiguously identified (TBD
flow label or RPL Hop-by-hop option ([I-D.hui-6man-rpl-option])).
The identifiers include the RPLInstanceID and the DODAGID for local
instances.
4.1. RPL Instance ID
A global RPLInstanceID MUST be unique to the whole LLN. Mechanisms
for allocating and provisioning global RPLInstanceID are out of scope
for this document. There can be up to 128 global instance in the
whole network, and up 64 local instances per DODAGID.
A global RPLinstanceID is encoded in a RPLinstanceID field as
follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| ID | Global RPLinstanceID in 0..127
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: RPL Instance ID field format for global instances
A local RPLInstanceID is autoconfigured by the node that owns the
DODAGID and it MUST be unique for that DODAGID. In that case, the
DODAGID MUST be a valid address of the root that is used as an
endpoint of all communications within that instance.
A local RPLinstanceID is encoded in a RPLinstanceID field as follows:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|D| ID | Local RPLInstanceID in 0..63
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: RPL Instance ID field format for local instances
The D flag in a Local RPLInstanceID is always set to 0 in RPL control
messages. It is used in data packets to indicate whether the DODAGID
is the source or the destination of the packet. If the D flag is set
to 1 then the destination address of the IPv6 packet MUST be the
DODAGID. If the D flag is clear then the source address of the IPv6
packet MUST be the DODAGID.
5. ICMPv6 RPL Control Message
This document defines the RPL Control Message, a new ICMPv6 message.
A RPL Control Message is identified by a code, and composed of a base
that depends on the code, and a series of options.
A RPL Control Message has the scope of a link. The source address is
a link local address. The destination address is either all routers
multicast address (FF02::2) or a link local address.
In accordance with [RFC4443], the RPL Control Message consists of an
ICMPv6 header followed by a message body. The message body is
comprised of a message base and possibly a number of options as
illustrated in Figure 5.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Base .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Option(s) .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: RPL Control Message
The RPL Control message is an ICMPv6 information message with a
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
requested Type of 155 (to be confirmed by IANA).
The Code field identifies the type of RPL Control Message. This
document defines codes for the following RPL Control Message types
(all codes are to be confirmed by the IANA Section 15.2):
o 0x00: DODAG Information Solicitation (Section 5.2)
o 0x01: DODAG Information Object (Section 5.3)
o 0x02: Destination Advertisement Object (Section 5.4)
o 0x03: Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment
(Section 5.5)
o 0x80: Secure DODAG Information Solicitation (Section 5.2.2)
o 0x81: Secure DODAG Information Object (Section 5.3.2)
o 0x82: Secure Destination Advertisement Object (Section 5.4.2)
o 0x83: Secure Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment
(Section 5.5.2)
The high order bit (0x80) of the code denotes whether the RPL message
has security enabled. Secure versions of RPL messages have a
modified format to support confidentiality and integrity, illustrated
in Figure Figure 6.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Security .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Base .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Option(s) .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Figure 6: Secure RPL Control Message
The remainder of this section describes the currently defined RPL
Control Message Base formats followed by the currently defined RPL
Control Message Options.
5.1. RPL Security Fields
Each RPL message has a secure version. The secure versions provide
integrity and confidentiality. Because security covers the base
message as well as options, in secured messages the security
information lies between the checksum and base, as shown in Figure
Figure 6.
The format of the security section is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|C|KIM| LVL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Counter |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Key Identifier .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Security
All fields are considered as packet payload from a security
processing perspective. The exact placement and format of message
integrity/authentication codes has not yet been determined.
Use of the Security section is further detailed in Section 14.
Security Control Field: The Security Control Field has one flag and
two fields:
Counter Compression (C): If the Counter Compression flag is
set then the Counter field is compressed from 4 bytes
into 1 byte. If the Counter Compression flag is clear
then the Counter field is 4 bytes and uncompressed.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Key Identifier Mode (KIM): The Key Identifier Mode field
indicates whether the key used for packet protection is
determined implicitly or explicitly and indicates the
particular representation of the Key Identifier field.
The Key Identifier Mode is set one of the non-reserved
values from the table below:
+------+-----+-----------------------------+------------+
| Mode | KIM | Meaning | Key |
| | | | Identifier |
| | | | Length |
| | | | (octets) |
+------+-----+-----------------------------+------------+
| 0 | 00 | Peer-to-peer key determined | 0 |
| | | implicitly from originator | |
| | | and recipient of packet. | |
| | | | |
| | | Key Source is not present. | |
| | | Key Index is not present. | |
+------+-----+-----------------------------+------------+
| 1 | 01 | Group key determined | 1 |
| | | implicitly from Key Index | |
| | | and side information. | |
| | | | |
| | | Key Source is not present. | |
| | | Key Index is present. | |
+------+-----+-----------------------------+------------+
| 2 | 10 | Signature key used; group | 0/9 |
| | | key determined explicitly | |
| | | if encryption used. | |
| | | | |
| | | Key Source may be present. | |
| | | Key Index may be present. | |
+------+-----+-----------------------------+------------+
| 3 | 11 | Group key determined | 9 |
| | | explicitly from Key Source | |
| | | Identifier and Key Index. | |
| | | | |
| | | Key Source is present. | |
| | | Key Index is present. | |
+------+-----+-----------------------------+------------+
Key Identifier Mode (KIM) Encoding
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Security Level (LVL): The Security Level field indicates the
provided packet protection. This value can be adapted on
a per-packet basis and allows for varying levels of data
authenticity and, optionally, for data confidentiality.
When nontrivial protection is provided, replay protection
is always provided. The Security Level is set to one of
the non-reserved values in the table below:
+--------------------+-------------------+
| Without Signatures | With Signatures |
+----+-----+-------------+------+-------------+-----+
| ID | LVL | Attributes | Auth | Attributes | Sig |
| | | | Len | | Len |
+----+-----+-------------+------+-------------+-----+
| 0 | 000 | None | 0 | None | 37 |
| 1 | 001 | MIC-32 | 4 | Sign-32 | 37 |
| 2 | 010 | MIC-64 | 8 | Sign-64 | 45 |
| 3 | 011 | Rsvd | N/A | Rsvd | N/A |
| 4 | 100 | ENC | 0 | ENC | 37 |
| 5 | 101 | ENC-MIC-32 | 4 | ENC-Sign-32 | 41 |
| 6 | 110 | ENC-MIC-64 | 8 | ENC-Sign-64 | 45 |
| 7 | 111 | Rsvd | N/A | Reserved | N/A |
+----+-----+-------------+------+-------------+-----+
Security Level (LVL) Encoding
Counter: The Counter field indicates the non-repeating value (nonce)
used with the cryptographic mechanism that implements packet
protection and allows for the provision of semantic security.
This value is compressed from 4 octets to 1 octet if the
Counter Compression field of the Security Control Field is set
to one.
Key Identifier: The Key Identifier field indicates which key was
used to protect the packet. This field provides various levels
of granularity of packet protection, including peer-to-peer
keys, group keys, and signature keys. This field is
represented as indicated by the Key Identifier Mode field and
is formatted as follows:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Key Source .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Key Index .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Key Identifier
Key Source: The Key Source field, when present, indicates the
logical identifier of the originator of a group key.
When present this field is 8 bytes in length.
Key Index: The Key Index field, when present, allows unique
identification of different keys with the same
originator. It is the responsibility of each key
originator to make sure that actively used keys that it
issues have distinct key indices and that all key indices
have a value unequal to 0x00. When present this field is
1 byte in length.
Unassigned bits of the Security section are reserved. They MUST be
set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.2. DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS)
The DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS) message may be used to
solicit a DODAG Information Object from a RPL node. Its use is
analogous to that of a Router Solicitation as specified in IPv6
Neighbor Discovery; a node may use DIS to probe its neighborhood for
nearby DODAGs. Section 6.3 describes how nodes respond to a DIS.
5.2.1. Format of the DIS Base Object
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: The DIS Base Object
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Unassigned bits of the DIS Base are reserved. They MUST be set to
zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.2.2. Secure DIS
A Secure DIS message follows the format in Figure Figure 6, where the
base format is the DIS message shown in Figure Figure 7.
5.2.3. DIS Options
The DIS message MAY carry valid options.
This specification allows for the DIS message to carry the following
options:
0x00 Pad1
0x01 PadN
0x05 RPL Target
0x07 Solicited Information
5.3. DODAG Information Object (DIO)
The DODAG Information Object carries information that allows a node
to discover a RPL Instance, learn its configuration parameters,
select a DODAG parent set, and maintain the upward routing topology.
5.3.1. Format of the DIO Base Object
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID | Version | Rank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G|A|T|MOP| Prf | DTSN | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: The DIO Base Object
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Control Field: The DAG Control Field has three flags and two fields:
Grounded (G): The Grounded (G) flag indicates whether the
upward routes this node advertises provide connectivity
to the set of addresses which are application-defined
goals. If the flag is set, the DODAG is grounded and
provides such connectivity. If the flag is cleared, the
DODAG is floating and may not provide such connectivity.
Destination Advertisement Supported (A): The Destination
Advertisement Supported (A) flag indicates whether the
root of this DODAG can collect and use downward route
state. If the flag is set, nodes in the network are
enabled to exchange destination advertisements messages
to build downward routes (Section 7). If the flag is
cleared, destination advertisement messages are disabled
and the DODAG maintains only upward routes.
Destination Advertisement Trigger (T): The Destination
Advertisement Trigger (T) flag indicates a complete
refresh of downward routes. If the flag is set, then a
refresh of downward route state is to take place over the
entire DODAG. If the flag is cleared, the downward route
maintenance is in its normal mode of operation. The
further details of this process are described in
Section 7.
Mode of Operation (MOP): The Mode of Operation (MOP) field
identifies the mode of operation of the RPL Instance as
administratively provisioned at and distributed by the
DODAG Root. All nodes who join the DODAG must be able to
honor the MOP in order to fully participate as a router,
or else they must only join as a leaf. MOP is encoded as
in the table below:
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+
| MOP | Meaning |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+
| 00 | Non-storing |
| 01 | Storing |
| 10 | Reserved for future specification of mixed-mode |
| 11 | Reserved |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+
Mode of Operation (MOP) Encoding
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
DODAGPreference (Prf): A 3-bit unsigned integer that defines
how preferable the root of this DODAG is compared to
other DODAG roots within the instance. DAGPreference
ranges from 0x00 (least preferred) to 0x07 (most
preferred). The default is 0 (least preferred).
Section 6.2 describes how DAGPreference affects DIO
processing.
Version Number: 8-bit unsigned integer set by the DODAG root.
Section 6.2 describes the rules for version numbers and how
they affect DIO processing.
Rank: 16-bit unsigned integer indicating the DODAG rank of the node
sending the DIO message. Section 6.2 describes how Rank is set
and how it affects DIO processing.
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field set by the DODAG root that indicates
which RPL Instance the DODAG is part of.
Destination Advertisement Trigger Sequence Number (DTSN): 8-bit
unsigned integer set by the node issuing the DIO message. The
Destination Advertisement Trigger Sequence Number (DTSN) flag
is used as part of the procedure to maintain downward routes.
The details of this process are described in Section 7.
DODAGID: 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root which uniquely
identifies a DODAG. Possibly derived from the IPv6 address of
the DODAG root.
Unassigned bits of the DIO Base are reserved. They MUST be set to
zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.3.2. Secure DIO
A Secure DIO message follows the format in Figure Figure 6, where the
base format is the DIS message shown in Figure Figure 8.
5.3.3. DIO Options
The DIO message MAY carry valid options.
This specification allows for the DIO message to carry the following
options:
0x00 Pad1
0x01 PadN
0x02 Metric Container
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
0x03 Routing Information
0x04 DODAG Configuration
0x09 Prefix Information
5.4. Destination Advertisement Object (DAO)
The Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) is used to propagate
destination information upwards along the DODAG. The DAO message is
unicast by the child to the selected parent(s). The DAO message may
optionally, upon explicit request or error, be acknowledged by the
parent with a Destination Advertisement Acknowledgement (DAO-ACK)
message back to the child.
5.4.1. Format of the DAO Base Object
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |K|D| Reserved | DAOSequence |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID* +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: The DAO Base Object
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.
K: The 'K' flag indicates that the parent is expected to send a
DAO-ACK back.
D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present. This
would typically only be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.
DAOSequence: Incremented at each unique DAO message, echoed in the
DAO-ACK message.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
DODAGID*: 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root which
uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field is only present when
the 'D' flag is set. This field is typically only present when
a local RPLInstanceID is in use, in order to identify the
DODAGID that is associated with the RPLInstanceID. When a
global RPLInstanceID is in use this field need not be present.
Unassigned bits of the DAO Base are reserved. They MUST be set to
zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.4.2. Secure DAO
A Secure DAO message follows the format in Figure Figure 6, where the
base format is the DAO message shown in Figure Figure 9.
5.4.3. DAO Options
The DAO message MAY carry valid options.
This specification allows for the DAO message to carry the following
options:
0x00 Pad1
0x01 PadN
0x05 RPL Target
0x06 Transit Information
A special case of the DAO message, termed a No-Path, is used to clear
downward routing state that has been provisioned through DAO
operation. The No-Path carries a RPL Transit Information option,
which identifies the destination to which the DAO is associated, with
a lifetime of 0x00000000 to indicate a loss of reachability.
5.5. Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgement (DAO-ACK)
The DAO-ACK message is sent as a unicast packet by a DAO parent in
response to a unicast DAO message from a child.
5.5.1. Format of the DAO-ACK Base Object
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID | Reserved | DAOSequence | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Figure 10: The DAO ACK Base Object
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.
DAOSequence: Incremented at each DAO message from a given child,
echoed in the DAO-ACK by the parent. The DAOSequence serves in
the parent-child communication and is not to be confused with
the Transit Information option Sequence that is associated to a
given target down the DODAG.
Status: Indicates the completion. 0 is unqualified acceptance, above
128 are rejection code indicating that the node should select
an alternate parent.
Unassigned bits of the DAO-ACK Base are reserved. They MUST be set
to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.5.2. Secure DAO-ACK
A Secure DAO-ACK message follows the format in Figure Figure 6, where
the base format is the DAO-ACK message shown in Figure Figure 10.
5.5.3. DAO-ACK Options
This specification does not define any options to be carried by the
DAO-ACK message.
5.6. RPL Control Message Options
5.6.1. RPL Control Message Option Generic Format
RPL Control Message Options all follow this format:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - -
| Option Type | Option Length | Option Data
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - -
Figure 11: RPL Option Generic Format
Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option. The Option
Type values are to be confirmed by the IANA Section 15.4.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Option Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in
octets of the option, not including the Option Type and Length
fields.
Option Data: A variable length field that contains data specific to
the option.
When processing a RPL message containing an option for which the
Option Type value is not recognized by the receiver, the receiver
MUST silently ignore the unrecognized option and continue to process
the following option, correctly handling any remaining options in the
message.
RPL message options may have alignment requirements. Following the
convention in IPv6, options with alignment requirements are aligned
in a packet such that multi-octet values within the Option Data field
of each option fall on natural boundaries (i.e., fields of width n
octets are placed at an integer multiple of n octets from the start
of the header, for n = 1, 2, 4, or 8).
5.6.2. Pad1
The Pad1 option may be present in DIS, DIO, DAO, and DAO-ACK
messages, and its format is as follows:
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Format of the Pad 1 Option
The Pad1 option is used to insert one or two octets of padding into
the message to enable options alignment. If more than one octet of
padding is required, the PadN option should be used rather than
multiple Pad1 options.
NOTE! the format of the Pad1 option is a special case - it has
neither Option Length nor Option Data fields.
5.6.3. PadN
The PadN option may be present in DIS, DIO, DAO, and DAO-ACK
messages, and its format is as follows:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - -
| Type = 1 | Option Length | 0x00 Padding...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - -
Figure 13: Format of the Pad N Option
The PadN option is used to insert two or more octets of padding into
the message to enable options alignment. PadN Option data MUST be
ignored by the receiver.
Option Type: 0x01 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: For N (N > 1) octets of padding, the Option Length
field contains the value N-2.
Option Data: For N (N > 1) octets of padding, the Option Data
consists of N-2 zero-valued octets.
5.6.4. Metric Container
The Metric Container option may be present in DIO messages, and its
format is as follows:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - -
| Type = 2 | Option Length | Metric Data
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - -
Figure 14: Format of the Metric Container Option
The Metric Container is used to report metrics along the DODAG. The
Metric Container may contain a number of discrete node, link, and
aggregate path metrics and constraints specified in
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics] as chosen by the implementer.
The processing and propagation of the Metric Container is governed by
implementation specific policy functions.
Option Type: 0x02 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: The Option Length field contains the length in octets
of the Metric Data.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Metric Data: The order, content, and coding of the Metric Container
data is as specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics].
5.6.5. Route Information
The Route Information option may be present in DIO messages, and is
equivalent in function to the IPv6 ND Route Information option as
defined in [RFC4191]. The format of the option is modified slightly
(Type, Length) in order to be carried as a RPL option as follows:
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 = 3 | Option Length | Prefix Length |Resvd|Prf|Resvd|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Prefix (Variable Length) .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Format of the Route Information Option
The Route Information option is used to indicate that connectivity to
the specified destination prefix is available from the DODAG root.
In the event that a RPL Control Message may need to specify
connectivity to more than one destination, the Route Information
option may be repeated.
[RFC4191] should be consulted as the authoritative reference with
respect to the Route Information option. The field descriptions are
transcribed here for convenience:
Option Type: 0x03 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: Variable, length of the option in octets excluding
the Type and Length fields. Note that this length is expressed
in units of single-octets, unlike in IPv6 ND.
Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in
the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 128.
The Prefix field is 0, 8, or 16 octets depending on Length.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Prf: 2-bit signed integer. The Route Preference indicates whether
to prefer the router associated with this prefix over others,
when multiple identical prefixes (for different routers) have
been received. If the Reserved (10) value is received, the
Route Information Option MUST be ignored.
Resvd: Two 3-bit unused fields. They MUST be initialized to zero by
the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Route Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in
seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent) that the
prefix is valid for route determination. A value of all one
bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity.
Prefix Variable-length field containing an IP address or a prefix of
an IP address. The Prefix Length field contains the number of
valid leading bits in the prefix. The bits in the prefix after
the prefix length (if any) are reserved and MUST be initialized
to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.
Unassigned bits of the Route Information option are reserved. They
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.6.6. DODAG Configuration
The DODAG Configuration option may be present in DIO messages, and
its format is as follows:
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 = 4 | Option Length | Resvd | PCS | DIOIntDoubl. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DIOIntMin. | DIORedun. | MaxRankIncrease |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MinHopRankIncrease |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: Format of the DODAG Configuration Option
The DODAG Configuration option is used to distribute configuration
information for DODAG Operation through the DODAG.
The information communicated in this option is generally static and
unchanging within the DODAG, therefore it is not necessary to include
in every DIO. This information is configured at the DODAG Root and
distributed throughout the DODAG with the DODAG Configuration Option.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT modify this information when
propagating the DODAG Configuration option. This option MAY be
included occasionally by the DODAG Root (as determined by the DODAG
Root), and MUST be included in response to a unicast request, e.g. a
unicast DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS) message.
Option Type: 0x04 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: 8 bytes
Path Control Size (PCS): 3-bit unsigned integer used to configure
the number of bits that may be allocated to the Path Control
field (see Section 7.1.4.2).
DIOIntervalDoublings: 8-bit unsigned integer used to configure Imax
of the DIO trickle timer (see Section 6.3.1).
DIOIntervalMin: 8-bit unsigned integer used to configure Imin of the
DIO trickle timer (see Section 6.3.1).
DIORedundancyConstant: 8-bit unsigned integer used to configure k of
the DIO trickle timer (see Section 6.3.1).
MaxRankIncrease: 16-bit unsigned integer used to configure
DAGMaxRankIncrease, the allowable increase in rank in support
of local repair. If DAGMaxRankIncrease is 0 then this
mechanism is disabled.
MinHopRankInc 16-bit unsigned integer used to configure
MinHopRankIncrease as described in Section 3.5.2.1.
5.6.7. RPL Target
The RPL Target option may be present in DAO messages, and its format
is as follows:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 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 = 5 | Option Length | Reserved | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Target Prefix (Variable Length) |
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 17: Format of the RPL Target Option
The RPL Target Option is used to indicate a target IPv6 address,
prefix, or multicast group that is reachable or queried along the
DODAG. It is used in DIO to identify a resource that the root is
trying to reach, and in a DAO to indicate reachability. It is used
in a DAO message to indicate reachability. A set of one or more
Transit Information options MAY directly follow the Target option in
a DAO message in support of constructing source routes in a non-
storing mode of operation [I-D.hui-6man-rpl-routing-header]. When
the same set of Transit Information options apply equally to a set of
DODAG Target options, the group of Target options MUST appear first,
followed by the Transit Information options which apply to those
Targets.
The RPL Target option may be repeated as necessary to indicate
multiple targets.
Option Type: 0x05 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: Variable, length of the option in octets excluding
the Type and Length fields.
Prefix Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. Number of valid leading bits
in the IPv6 Prefix.
Target Prefix: Variable-length field identifying an IPv6 destination
address, prefix, or multicast group. The Prefix Length field
contains the number of valid leading bits in the prefix. The
bits in the prefix after the prefix length (if any) are
reserved and MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
5.6.8. Transit Information
The Transit Information option may be present in DAO messages, and
its format is as follows:
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 = 6 | Option Length | Path Sequence | Path Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Parent Address* +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 18: Format of the Transit Information option
The Transit Information option is used for a node to indicate
attributes for a path to one or more destinations. The destinations
are indicated as by one or more Target options that immediately
precede the Transit Information option(s).
The Transit Information option can used for a node to indicate its
DODAG parents to an ancestor that is collecting DODAG routing
information, typically for the purpose of constructing source routes.
In the non-storing mode of operation this ancestor will be the DODAG
Root, and this option is carried by the DAO message. The option
length is used to determine whether the Parent Address is present or
not.
A non-storing node that has more than one DAO parent MAY include a
Transit Information option for each DAO parent as part of the non-
storing Destination Advertisement operation. The node may code the
Path Control field in order to signal a preference among parents.
One or more Transit Information options MUST be preceded by one or
more RPL Target options. In this manner the RPL Target option
indicates the child node, and the Transit Information option(s)
enumerate the DODAG parents.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
A typical non-storing node will use multiple Transit Information
options, and it will send the DAO thus formed to only one parent that
will forward it to the root. A typical storing node with use one
Transit Information option with no parent field, and will send the
DAO thus formed to multiple parents.
Option Type: 0x06 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: Variable, depending on whether or not Parent Address
is present.
Path-Sequence: 8-bit unsigned integer. When a RPL Target option is
issued by the node that owns the Target Prefix (i.e. in a DAO
message), that node sets the Path-Sequence and increments the
Path-Sequence each time it issues a RPL Target option.
Path Control: 8-bit bitfield. The Path Control field limits the
number of DAO-Parents to which a DAO message advertising
connectivity to a specific destination may be sent, as well as
providing some indication of relative preference. The limit
provides some bound on overall DAO fan-out in the LLN. The
leftmost bit is associated with a path that contains a most-
preferred link, and the subsequent bits are ordered down to the
rightmost bit which is least preferred.
Path Lifetime: 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in
seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent) that the
prefix is valid for route determination. A value of all one
bits (0xFFFFFFFF) represents infinity. A value of all zero
bits (0x00000000) indicates a loss of reachability. This is
referred as a No-Path in this document.
Parent Address (optional): IPv6 Address of the DODAG Parent of the
node originally issuing the Transit Information Option. This
field may not be present, as according to the DODAG Mode of
Operation and indicated by the Transit Information option
length.
Unassigned bits of the Transit Information option are reserved. They
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
5.6.9. Solicited Information
The Solicited Information option may be present in DIS messages, and
its format is as follows:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 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 = 7 | Option Length | RPLInstanceID |V|I|D| Rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 19: Format of the Solicited Information Option
The Solicited Information option is used for a node to request a
subset of neighboring nodes that meet the specified criteria to
respond to a DIS message.
The Solicited Information option may specify a number of predicate
criteria to be matched by a receiving node. If a node receiving a
multicast DIS message containing a Solicited Information option
matches ALL of the predicates, then it MUST reset its trickle timer
in order to trigger a DIO response to the DIS message. When a node
receives a DIS message containing a Solicited information option, and
the DIS message is unicast OR the node does not match ALL the
predicates, then the node MUST NOT reset the trickle timer.
Option Type: 0x07 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: 19 bytes
Control Field: The Solicited Information option Control Field has
three flags:
V: If the V flag is set then the Version field is valid and
a node should only respond if its DODAGVersionNumber
matches the requested version. If the V flag is clear
then the Version field is not valid and the Version field
MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored upon
receipt.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
I: If the I flag is set then the RPLInstanceID field is
valid and a node should only respond if it matches the
requested RPLInstanceID. If the I flag is clear then the
RPLInstanceID field is not valid and the RPLInstanceID
field MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored
upon receipt.
D: If the D flag is set then the DODAGID field is valid and
a node should only respond if it matches the requested
DODAGID. If the D flag is clear then the DODAGID field
is not valid and the DODAGID field MUST be set to zero on
transmission and ignored upon receipt.
Version: 8-bit unsigned integer containing the DODAG Version number
that is being solicited when valid.
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit unsigned integer containing the RPLInstanceID
that is being solicited when valid.
DODAGID: 128-bit unsigned integer containing the DODAGID that is
being solicited when valid.
Unassigned bits of the Solicited Information option are reserved.
They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
5.6.10. Prefix Information
The Prefix Information option may be present in DIO messages, and is
equivalent in function to the IPv6 ND Prefix Information option as
defined in [RFC4861]. The format of the option is modified slightly
(Type, Length) in order to be carried as a RPL option as follows:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 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 = 8 | Option Length | Prefix Length |L|A| Reserved1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preferred Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: Format of the Prefix Information Option
The Prefix Information option may be used to distribute the prefix in
use inside the DODAG, e.g. for address autoconfiguration.
[RFC4861] should be consulted as the authoritative reference with
respect to the Prefix Information option. The field descriptions are
transcribed here for convenience:
Option Type: 0x08 (to be confirmed by IANA)
Option Length: 30. Note that this length is expressed in units of
single-octets, unlike in IPv6 ND.
Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in
the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 128.
The prefix length field provides necessary information for on-
link determination (when combined with the L flag in the prefix
information option). It also assists with address
autoconfiguration as specified in [RFC4862], for which there
may be more restrictions on the prefix length.
L 1-bit on-link flag. When set, indicates that this prefix can
be used for on-link determination. When not set the
advertisement makes no statement about on-link or off-link
properties of the prefix. In other words, if the L flag is not
set a host MUST NOT conclude that an address derived from the
prefix is off-link. That is, it MUST NOT update a previous
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
indication that the address is on-link.
A 1-bit autonomous address-configuration flag. When set
indicates that this prefix can be used for stateless address
configuration as specified in [RFC4862].
Reserved1 6-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Valid Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in
seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent) that the
prefix is valid for the purpose of on-link determination. A
value of all one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity. The
Valid Lifetime is also used by [RFC4862].
Preferred Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in
seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent) that
addresses generated from the prefix via stateless address
autoconfiguration remain preferred [RFC4862]. A value of all
one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity. See [RFC4862].
Note that the value of this field MUST NOT exceed the Valid
Lifetime field to avoid preferring addresses that are no longer
valid.
Reserved2 This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero by
the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Prefix An IP address or a prefix of an IP address. The Prefix
Length field contains the number of valid leading bits in the
prefix. The bits in the prefix after the prefix length are
reserved and MUST be initialized to zero by the sender and
ignored by the receiver. A router SHOULD NOT send a prefix
option for the link-local prefix and a host SHOULD ignore such
a prefix option.
Unassigned bits of the Prefix Information option are reserved. They
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
6. Upward Routes
This section describes how RPL discovers and maintains upward routes.
It describes the use of DODAG Information Objects (DIOs), the
messages used to discover and maintain these routes. It specifies
how RPL generates and responds to DIOs. It also describes DODAG
Information Solicitation (DIS) messages, which are used to trigger
DIO transmissions.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
6.1. DIO Base Rules
1. If the 'A' flag of a DIO Base is cleared, the 'T' flag MUST also
be cleared.
2. For the following DIO Base fields, a node that is not a DODAG
root MUST advertise the same values as its preferred DODAG parent
(defined in Section 6.2.1). Therefore, if a DODAG root does not
change these values, every node in a route to that DODAG root
eventually advertises the same values for these fields. These
fields are:
1. Grounded (G)
2. Destination Advertisement Supported (A)
3. Destination Advertisement Trigger (T)
4. DAGPreference (Prf)
5. Version
6. RPLInstanceID
7. DODAGID
3. A node MAY update the following fields at each hop:
1. Destination Advertisements Stored (S)
2. DAGRank
3. DTSN
4. The DODAGID field each root sets MUST be unique within the RPL
Instance.
6.2. Upward Route Discovery and Maintenance
Upward route discovery allows a node to join a DODAG by discovering
neighbors that are members of the DODAG of interest and identifying a
set of parents. The exact policies for selecting neighbors and
parents is implementation-dependent and driven by the OF. This
section specifies the set of rules those policies must follow for
interoperability.
6.2.1. Neighbors and Parents within a DODAG Version
RPL's upward route discovery algorithms and processing are in terms
of three logical sets of link-local nodes. First, the candidate
neighbor set is a subset of the nodes that can be reached via link-
local multicast. The selection of this set is implementation-
dependent and OF-dependent. Second, the parent set is a restricted
subset of the candidate neighbor set. Finally, the preferred parent,
a set of size one, is an element of the parent set that is the
preferred next hop in upward routes.
More precisely:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
1. The DODAG parent set MUST be a subset of the candidate neighbor
set.
2. A DODAG root MUST have a DODAG parent set of size zero.
3. A node that is not a DODAG root MAY maintain a DODAG parent set
of size greater than or equal to one.
4. A node's preferred DODAG parent MUST be a member of its DODAG
parent set.
5. A node's rank MUST be greater than all elements of its DODAG
parent set.
6. When Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD), or an equivalent
mechanism, determines that a neighbor is no longer reachable, a
RPL node MUST NOT consider this node in the candidate neighbor
set when calculating and advertising routes until it determines
that it is again reachable. Routes through an unreachable
neighbor MUST be removed from the routing table.
These rules ensure that there is a consistent partial order on nodes
within the DODAG. As long as node ranks do not change, following the
above rules ensures that every node's route to a DODAG root is loop-
free, as rank decreases on each hop to the root. The OF can guide
candidate neighbor set and parent set selection, as discussed in
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics] and [I-D.ietf-roll-of0].
6.2.2. Neighbors and Parents across DODAG Versions
The above rules govern a single DODAG version. The rules in this
section define how RPL operates when there are multiple DODAG
versions:
6.2.2.1. DODAG Version
1. The tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID, DODAGVersionNumber) uniquely
defines a DODAG Version. Every element of a node's DODAG parent
set, as conveyed by the last heard DIO message from each DODAG
parent, MUST belong to the same DODAG version. Elements of a
node's candidate neighbor set MAY belong to different DODAG
Versions.
2. A node is a member of a DODAG version if every element of its
DODAG parent set belongs to that DODAG version, or if that node
is the root of the corresponding DODAG.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
3. A node MUST NOT send DIOs for DODAG versions of which it is not a
member.
4. DODAG roots MAY increment the DODAGVersionNumber that they
advertise and thus move to a new DODAG version. When a DODAG
root increments its DODAGVersionNumber, it MUST follow the
conventions of Serial Number Arithmetic as described in
[RFC1982].
5. Within a given DODAG, a node that is a not a root MUST NOT
advertise a DODAGVersionNumber higher than the highest
DODAGVersionNumber it has heard. Higher is defined as the
greater-than operator in [RFC1982].
6. Once a node has advertised a DODAG version by sending a DIO, it
MUST NOT be member of a previous DODAG version of the same DODAG
(i.e. with the same RPLInstanceID, the same DODAGID, and a lower
DODAGVersionNumber). Lower is defined as the less-than operator
in [RFC1982].
Within a particular implementation, a DODAG root may increment the
DODAGVersionNumber periodically, at a rate that depends on the
deployment, in order to trigger a global reoptimization of the DODAG.
In other implementations, loop detection may be considered sufficient
to solve routing issues by triggering local repair mechanisms, and
the DODAG root may increment the DODAGVersionNumber only upon
administrative intervention. Another possibility is that nodes
within the LLN have some means by which they can signal detected
routing inconsistencies or suboptimalities to the DODAG root, in
order to request an on-demand DODAGVersionNumber increment (i.e.
request a global repair of the DODAG). Note that such a mechanism is
for further study and out of the scope of this document.
When the DODAG parent set becomes empty on a node that is not a root,
(i.e. the last parent has been removed, causing the node to no longer
be associated with that DODAG), then the DODAG information should not
be suppressed until after the expiration of an implementation-
specific local timer in order to observe if the DODAGVersionNumber
has been incremented, should any new parents appear for the DODAG.
This will help protect against the possibility of loops that may
occur of that node were to inadvertently rejoin the old DODAG version
in its own prior sub-DODAG.
As the DODAGVersionNumber is incremented, a new DODAG Version spreads
outward from the DODAG root. Thus a parent that advertises the new
DODAGVersionNumber cannot possibly belong to the sub-DODAG of a node
that still advertises an older DODAGVersionNumber. A node may safely
add such a parent, without risk of forming a loop, without regard to
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
its relative rank in the prior DODAG Version. This is equivalent to
jumping to a different DODAG.
As a node transitions to new DODAG Versions as a consequence of
following these rules, the node will be unable to advertise the
previous DODAG Version (prior DODAGVersionNumber) once it has
committed to advertising the new DODAG Version.
During transition to a new DODAG Version, a node may decide to
forward packets via 'future parents' that belong to the same DODAG
(same RPLInstanceID and DODAGID), but are observed to advertise a
more recent (incremented) DODAGVersionNumber. In that case, the node
MUST act as a leaf with regard to the new version for the purpose of
loop detection as specified in Section 8.2.
6.2.2.2. DODAG Roots
1. A DODAG root that does not have connectivity to the set of
addresses described as application-level goals, MUST NOT set the
Grounded bit.
2. A DODAG root MUST advertise a rank of ROOT_RANK.
3. A node whose DODAG parent set is empty MAY become the DODAG root
of a floating DODAG. It MAY also set its DAGPreference such that
it is less preferred.
An LLN node that is a goal for the Objective Function is the root of
its own grounded DODAG, at rank ROOT_RANK.
In a deployment that uses a backbone link to federate a number of LLN
roots, it is possible to run RPL over that backbone and use one
router as a "backbone root". The backbone root is the virtual root
of the DODAG, and exposes a rank of BASE_RANK over the backbone. All
the LLN roots that are parented to that backbone root, including the
backbone root if it also serves as LLN root itself, expose a rank of
ROOT_RANK to the LLN, and are part of the same DODAG, coordinating
DODAGVersionNumber and other DODAG root determined parameters with
the virtual root over the backbone.
6.2.2.3. DODAG Selection
The DODAGPreference (Prf) provides an administrative mechanism to
engineer the self-organization of the LLN, for example indicating the
most preferred LBR. If a node has the option to join a more
preferred DODAG while still meeting other optimization objectives,
then the node will generally seek to join the more preferred DODAG as
determined by the OF. All else being equal, it is left to the
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
implementation to determine which DODAG is most preferred, possibly
based on additional criteria beyond Prf and the OF.
6.2.2.4. Rank and Movement within a DODAG Version
1. A node MUST NOT advertise a rank less than or equal to any member
of its parent set within the DODAG Version.
2. A node MAY advertise a rank lower than its prior advertisement
within the DODAG Version.
3. Let L be the lowest rank within a DODAG version that a given node
has advertised. Within the same DODAG Version, that node MUST
NOT advertise an effective rank higher than L +
DAGMaxRankIncrease. INFINITE_RANK is an exception to this rule:
a node MAY advertise an INFINITE_RANK at any time. (This rule
corresponds to a limited rank increase for the purpose of local
repair within the DODAG Version.)
4. A node MAY, at any time, choose to join a different DODAG within
a RPL Instance. Such a join has no rank restrictions, unless
that different DODAG is a DODAG Version of which this node has
previously been a member, in which case the rule of the previous
bullet (3) must be observed. Until a node transmits a DIO
indicating its new DODAG membership, it MUST forward packets
along the previous DODAG.
5. A node MAY, at any time after hearing the next DODAGVersionNumber
Version advertised from suitable DODAG parents, choose to migrate
to the next DODAG Version within the DODAG.
Conceptually, an implementation is maintaining a DODAG parent set
within the DODAG Version. Movement entails changes to the DODAG
parent set. Moving up does not present the risk to create a loop but
moving down might, so that operation is subject to additional
constraints.
When a node migrates to the next DODAG Version, the DODAG parent and
sibling sets need to be rebuilt for the new version. An
implementation could defer to migrate for some reasonable amount of
time, to see if some other neighbors with potentially better metrics
but higher rank announce themselves. Similarly, when a node jumps
into a new DODAG it needs to construct new DODAG parent/sibling sets
for this new DODAG.
When a node moves to improve its position, it must conceptually
abandon all DODAG parents and siblings with a rank larger than
itself. As a consequence of the movement it may also add new
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
siblings. Such a movement may occur at any time to decrease the
rank, as per the calculation indicated by the OF. Maintenance of the
parent and sibling sets occurs as the rank of candidate neighbors is
observed as reported in their DIOs.
If a node needs to move down a DODAG that it is attached to, causing
the rank to increase, then it MAY poison its routes and delay before
moving as described in Section 6.2.2.5.
6.2.2.5. Poisoning a Broken Path
1. A node MAY poison, in order to avoid being used as an ancestor by
the nodes in its sub-DODAG, by advertising an effective rank of
INFINITE_RANK and resetting the associated DIO trickle timer to
cause this INFINITE_RANK to be announced promptly.
2. The node MAY advertise an effective rank of INFINITE_RANK for an
arbitrary number of DIO timer events, before announcing a new
rank.
3. As per Section 6.2.2.4, the node MUST advertise INFINITE_RANK
within the DODAG version in which it participates, if its
revision in rank would exceed the maximum rank increase.
An implementation may choose to employ this poisoning mechanism when
a node loses all of its current parents, i.e. the set of DODAG
parents becomes depleted, and it can not jump to an alternate DODAG.
An alternate mechanism is to form a floating DODAG.
The motivation for delaying announcement of the revised route through
multiple DIO events is to (i) increase tolerance to DIO loss, (ii)
allow time for the poisoning action to propagate, and (iii) to
develop an accurate assessment of its new rank. Such gains are
obtained at the expense of potentially increasing the delay before
portions of the network are able to re-establish upwards routes.
Path redundancy in the DODAG reduces the significance of either
effect, since children with alternate parents should be able to
utilize those alternates and retain their rank while the detached
parent re-establishes its rank.
Although an implementation may advertise INFINITE_RANK for the
purposes of poisoning, it is not expected to be equivalent to setting
the rank to INFINITE_RANK, and an implementation would likely retain
its rank value prior to the poisoning in some form, for purpose of
maintaining its effective position within (L + DAGMaxRankIncrease).
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
6.2.2.6. Detaching
1. A node unable to stay connected to a DODAG within a given DODAG
version MAY detach from this DODAG version. A node that detaches
becomes root of its own floating DODAG and SHOULD immediately
advertise this new situation in a DIO as an alternate to
poisoning.
6.2.2.7. Following a Parent
1. If a node receives a DIO from one of its DODAG parents,
indicating that the parent has left the DODAG, that node SHOULD
stay in its current DODAG through an alternative DODAG parent, if
possible. It MAY follow the leaving parent.
A DODAG parent may have moved, migrated to the next DODAG Version, or
jumped to a different DODAG. A node should give some preference to
remaining in the current DODAG, if possible via an alternate parent,
but ought to follow the parent if there are no other options.
6.2.3. DIO Message Communication
When an DIO message is received, the receiving node must first
determine whether or not the DIO message should be accepted for
further processing, and subsequently present the DIO message for
further processing if eligible.
1. If the DIO message is malformed, then the DIO message is not
eligible for further processing and MUST be silently discarded.
A RPL implementation MAY log the reception of a malformed DIO
message.
2. If the sender of the DIO message is a member of the candidate
neighbor set, then the DIO is eligible for further processing.
6.2.3.1. DIO Message Processing
As DIO messages are received from candidate neighbors, the neighbors
may be promoted to DODAG parents by following the rules of DODAG
discovery as described in Section 6.2. When a node places a neighbor
into the DODAG parent set, the node becomes attached to the DODAG
through the new DODAG parent node.
The most preferred parent should be used to restrict which other
nodes may become DODAG parents. Some nodes in the DODAG parent set
may be of a rank less than or equal to the most preferred DODAG
parent. (This case may occur, for example, if an energy constrained
device is at a lesser rank but should be avoided as per an
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
optimization objective, resulting in a more preferred parent at a
greater rank).
6.3. DIO Transmission
RPL nodes transmit DIOs using a Trickle timer
([I-D.ietf-roll-trickle]). A DIO from a sender with a lower DAGRank
that causes no changes to the recipient's parent set, preferred
parent, or Rank SHOULD be considered consistent with respect to the
Trickle timer.
The following packets and events MUST be considered inconsistencies
with respect to the Trickle timer, and cause the Trickle timer to
reset:
o When a node detects an inconsistency when forwarding a packet, as
detailed in Section 8.2.
o When a node receives a multicast DIS message whose constraints
(Solicited Information) it satisfies.
o When a node joins a new DODAG Version (e.g. by updating its
DODAGVersionNumber, joining a new RPL Instance, etc.)
Note that this list is not exhaustive, and an implementation MAY
consider other messages or events to be inconsistencies.
If a node receives a unicast DIS message whose constraints (Solicited
Information) it satisfies, it MUST unicast a DIO in response, and
this DIO MUST include the RPL instance's DODAG Configuration object.
6.3.1. Trickle Parameters
The configuration parameters of the trickle timer are specified as
follows:
Imin: learned from the DIO message as (2^DIOIntervalMin)ms. The
default value of DIOIntervalMin is DEFAULT_DIO_INTERVAL_MIN.
Imax: learned from the DIO message as DIOIntervalDoublings. The
default value of DIOIntervalDoublings is
DEFAULT_DIO_INTERVAL_DOUBLINGS.
k: learned from the DIO message as DIORedundancyConstant. The
default value of DIORedundancyConstant is
DEFAULT_DIO_REDUNDANCY_CONSTANT. In RPL, when k has the value
of 0x00 this is to be treated as a redundancy constant of
infinity in RPL, i.e. Trickle never suppresses messages.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
6.4. DODAG Selection
The DODAG selection is implementation and OF dependent. Nodes SHOULD
prefer to join DODAGs for RPLInstanceIDs advertising OCPs and
destinations compatible with their implementation specific
objectives. In order to limit erratic movements, and all metrics
being equal, nodes SHOULD keep their previous selection. Also, nodes
SHOULD provide a means to filter out a parent whose availability is
detected as fluctuating, at least when more stable choices are
available.
When connection to a grounded DODAG is not possible or preferable for
security or other reasons, scattered DODAGs MAY aggregate as much as
possible into larger DODAGs in order to allow connectivity within the
LLN.
A node SHOULD verify that bidirectional connectivity and adequate
link quality is available with a candidate neighbor before it
considers that candidate as a DODAG parent.
6.5. Operation as a Leaf Node
In some cases a RPL node may attach to a DODAG as a leaf node only.
One example of such a case is when a node does not understand the RPL
Instance's OF or advertised path metric. A leaf node does not extend
DODAG connectivity but still needs to advertise its presence using
DIOs. A node operating as a leaf node must obey the following rules:
1. It MUST NOT transmit DIOs containing the DAG Metric Container.
2. Its DIOs must advertise a DAGRank of INFINITE_RANK.
3. It MAY transmit unicast DAOs as described in Section 7.1.
4. It MAY transmit multicast DAOs to the '1 hop' neighborhood as
described in Section 7.1.9.
6.6. Administrative Rank
In some cases it might be beneficial to adjust the rank advertised by
a node beyond that computed by the OF based on some implementation
specific policy and properties of the node. For example, a node that
has limited battery should be a leaf unless there is no other choice,
and may then augment the rank computation specified by the OF in
order to expose an exaggerated rank.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
7. Downward Routes
This section describes how RPL discovers and maintains downward
routes. The use of messages containing the Destination Advertisement
Object (DAO), used to construct downward routes, are described. The
downward routes are necessary in support of P2MP flows, from the
DODAG roots toward the leaves. It specifies non-storing and storing
behavior of nodes with respect to DAO messaging and DAO routing table
entries. Nodes, as according to their resources and the
implementation, may selectively store routing table entries learned
from DAO messages, or may instead propagate the DAO information
upwards and independently source local topology information in a new
DAO message. information. A further optimization is described
whereby DAO messages may be used to populate routing table entries
for the '1-hop' neighbors, which may be useful in some cases as a
shortcut for P2P flows.
7.1. Downward Route Discovery and Maintenance
7.1.1. Overview
Destination Advertisement operation produces DAO messages that flow
up the DODAG, provisioning downward routing state for destination
prefixes available in the sub-DODAG of the DODAG root, and possibly
other nodes. The routing state provisioned with this mechanism is in
the form of soft-state routing table entries. DAO operation is
presently defined in two distinct modes of operation, non-storing and
storing, and allowance is made for future expansion.
Destination Advertisement may or may not be enabled over a DODAG
rooted at a DODAG root. This is an a priori configuration determined
by the implementation/deployment and not generally changed during the
operation of the RPL LLN.
Destination Advertisement may be configured to operate in either a
storing or non-storing mode, as reported in the MOP in the DIO
message. Every node in the network participating in Destination
Advertisement must behave consistently with that configured mode of
operation, or alternately behave only as a leaf node. Hybrid or
mixed-mode operation is not currently specified.
When Destination Advertisement is enabled:
1. The RPL Instance will be configured a priori as appropriate to
satisfy the application to operate in either non-storing or
storing mode.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
2. All nodes who join the DODAG MUST abide with the MOP setting from
the root. Nodes that would not have the capability to fully
participate as a router (e.g. to operate as a storing node) can
still join as a leaf (i.e. host).
3. In storing mode operation, all non-root nodes are expected to
either store routing table entries for ALL destinations learned
from DAO operation, or to act as a leaf node only.
4. In non-storing mode operation, no node other than the DODAG Root
is expected to store routing table entries learned from DAO
messages. Each node is only responsible to report its own set of
parents to the DODAG Root.
5. DODAG roots nodes SHOULD be capable to store routing table
entries learned from DAO operation when the RPL Instance is
operated in a non-storing mode.
6. The mode of operation in the RPL Instance is signaled from the
DODAG Root in the MOP control field of the DIO message.
7.1.2. Mode of Operation
o DAO Operation may not be required for all use cases.
o Some applications may only need support for collection/upward/MP2P
flow with no acknowledgement/reciprocal traffic.
o Some DODAGs may not support DAO Operation, which could mean that
DAO Operation is wasteful overhead.
o As a special case, multicast DAO operation may be used to populate
'one-hop' neighborhood routing table entries, and is distinct from
the unicast DAO operation used to establish downward routes along
the DODAG. This special case is an exception to the RPL Instance
mode of operation as well.
1. The 'A' flag in the DIO as conveyed from the DODAG root serves to
enable/disable DAO operation over the entire DODAG. This flag
should be administratively provisioned a priori at the DODAG root
as a function of the implementation/deployment and not tend to
change.
2. When DAO Operation is disabled, a node MUST NOT emit DAO
messages.
3. When DAO Operation is disabled, a node MAY ignore the MOP field.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
4. When DAO Operation is disabled, a node MAY ignore received DAO
messages.
7.1.3. Destination Advertisement Parents
o Nodes will select a subset of their DODAG Parents to whom DAO
messages will be sent
* This subset is the set of 'DAO Parents'
* Each DAO parent MUST be a DODAG Parent. (Not all DODAG parents
need to be DAO parents).
o The selection of DAO parents is implementation specific and may be
based on selecting the DODAG Parents that offer the best upwards
cost (as opposed to downwards or mixed), as determined by the
metrics in use and the Objective Function.
o When DAO messages are unicast to the DAO Parent, the identity of
the DAO Parent (DODAGID and DODAGVersionNumber) combined with the
RPLInstanceID in the DAO message unambiguously associates the DAO
message, and thus the particular destination prefix, with a DODAG
Version.
7.1.4. DAO Operation on Storing Nodes
7.1.4.1. DAO Routing Table Entry
A DAO Routing Table Entry conceptually contains the following
elements:
o Advertising Neighbor Information
* IPv6 Address
* Interface ID
o To which DAO Parents has this entry been reported
o Retry Counter
o Logical equivalent of DAO Content:
* DAO Sequence
* DAO Lifetime
* DAO Path Control (as learned from each child)
* Destination Prefix (or Address or Mcast Group)
The DAO Routing Table Entry is logically associated with the
following states:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
CONNECTED This entry is 'owned' by the node - it is manually
configured and is considered as a 'self' entry for DAO
Operation
REACHABLE This entry has been reported from a neighbor of the node.
This state includes the following substates:
CONFIRMED This entry is active, newly validated, and
usable
PENDING This entry is active, awaiting validation, and
usable. A Retry Counter is associated with
this substate
UNREACHABLE This entry is being cleaned up. This entry may be
suppressed when the cleanup process is complete.
When an attempt is to be made to report the DAO entry to DAO Parents,
the DAO Entry record is logically marked to indicate that an attempt
has not yet been made for each parent. As the unicast attempts are
completed for each parent, this mark may be cleared. This mechanism
may serve to limit DAO entry updates for each parent to a subset that
needs to be reported.
7.1.4.1.1. DAO Routing Table Entry Management
+---------------------------------+
| |
| REACHABLE | +-------------+
| | | |
| +-----------+ | | CONNECTED |
(*)----------->| |-------+ | | |
| | Confirmed | | | +-------------+
| +-->| |---+ | |
| | +-----------+ | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | +-----------+ | | | +-------------+
| | | |<--+ +-------->| |
| +---| Pending | | | UNREACHABLE |
| | |---------------->| |--->(*)
| +-----------+ | +-------------+
| |
+---------------------------------+
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
DAO Routing Table Entry FSM
7.1.4.1.1.1. Operation in the CONNECTED state
1. CONNECTED DAO entries are to be provisioned outside of the
context of RPL, e.g. through a management API. An implementation
SHOULD provide a means to provision/manage CONNECTED DAO entries,
including whether they are to be redistributed in RPL.
7.1.4.1.1.2. Operation in the REACHABLE state
1. When a REACHABLE(*) entry times out, i.e. the DAO Lifetime has
elapsed, the entry MUST be placed into the UNREACHABLE state and
No-Path SHOULD be scheduled to send to the node's DAO Parents.
2. When a No-Path for a REACHABLE(*) entry is received with a newer
DAO Sequence Number, the entry MUST be placed into the
UNREACHABLE state and No-Path SHOULD be scheduled to send to the
node's DAO Parents.
3. When a REACHABLE(*) entry is to be removed because NUD or
equivalent has determined that the next-hop neighbor is no longer
reachable, the entry MUST be placed into the UNREACHABLE state
and No-Path SHOULD be scheduled to send to the node's DAO
Parents.
4. When a REACHABLE(*) entry is to be removed because an associated
Forwarding Error has been returned by the next-hop neighbor, the
entry MUST be placed into the UNREACHABLE state and No-Path
SHOULD be scheduled to send to the node's DAO Parents.
5. When a DAO (or No-Path) for a REACHABLE(*) entry is received with
an older or unchanged DAO Sequence Number, then the DAO (or No-
Path) SHOULD be ignored and the associated entry MUST NOT be
updated with the stale information.
7.1.4.1.1.2.1. REACHABLE(Confirmed)
1. When a DAO for a previously unknown (or UNREACHABLE) destination
is received and is to be stored, it MUST be entered into the
routing table in the REACHABLE(Confirmed) state, and a DAO SHOULD
be scheduled to send to the node's DAO Parents.
2. When a DAO for a REACHABLE(Confirmed) entry is received with a
newer DAO Sequence Number, the entry MUST be updated with the
logical equivalent of the DAO contents and a DAO SHOULD be
scheduled to send to the node's DAO Parents.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
3. When a DAO for a REACHABLE(Confirmed) entry is expected, e.g.
because a DIO to request a DAO refresh is sent, then the DAO
entry MUST be placed in the REACHABLE(Pending) state and the
associated Retry Counter MUST be set to 0.
7.1.4.1.1.2.2. REACHABLE(Pending)
1. When a DAO for a REACHABLE(Pending) entry is received with a
newer DAO Sequence Number, the entry MUST be updated with the
logical equivalent of the DAO contents and the entry MUST be
placed in the REACHABLE(Confirmed) state.
2. When a DAO for a REACHABLE(Pending) entry is expected, e.g.
because DAO has (again) been triggered with respect to that
neighbor, then the associated Retry Counter MUST be incremented.
3. When the associated Retry Counter for a REACHABLE(Pending) entry
reaches a maximum threshold, the entry MUST be placed into the
UNREACHABLE state and No-Path SHOULD be scheduled to send to the
node's DAO Parents.
7.1.4.1.1.3. Operation in the UNREACHABLE state
1. An implementation SHOULD bound the time that the entry is
allocated in the UNREACHABLE state. Upon the equivalent expiry
of the related timer (RemoveTimer), the entry SHOULD be
suppressed.
2. While the entry is in the UNREACHABLE state a node SHOULD make a
reasonable attempt to report a No-Path to each of the DAO
parents.
3. When the node has completed an attempt to report a No-Path to
each of the DAO parents, the entry SHOULD be suppressed.
7.1.4.2. Storing Mode DAO Message and Path Control
In the storing mode of operation, a DAO message from a node will
contain one or more Target Options, each Target Option specifying
either a CONNECTED destination or a destination in the sub-DODAG of
the node.
For each attempt made to report the DAO entry to a set of DAO
parents, the Path Control field will be constructed as follows:
1. The size of the path control field will be specified by the PCS
control field of the DODAG Configuration Option. The default
value is DEFAULT_PATH_CONTROL_SIZE.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
2. For each unique destination to be reported that is CONNECTED, the
logical equivalent of a path control bitmap that is the size of
the path control field shall be initialized with the leftmost
bits set, where the number of leftmost bits corresponds to the
size of the path control field as specified by PCS.
3. For each unique destination to be reported that is not CONNECTED,
i.e. that destination is contained in the node's sub-DODAG, the
logical equivalent of a path control bitmap that is the size of
the path control field shall be initialized by ORing the content
of all of the Path Control fields received in DAO messages from
the node's children for that destination.
4. For each DAO Parent that the node shall attempt an update to, the
node shall exclusively allocate 1 or more set bits from the path
control bitmap to that DAO Parent. The path control bits SHOULD
be allocated in order of preference, such that the most
significant bits, or groupings of bits, are allocated to the most
preferred DAO parents as determined by the node. Once a bit from
the path control bitmap has been allocated to a DAO Parent for
this attempt, the corresponding bit MUST be set in the Path
Control field in the DAO message sent to that DAO Parent, and
that bit MUST NOT be allocated to any other DAO Parent.
5. A unicast DAO message may be sent for DAO Parents that have a
non-zero Path Control field.
6. If any DAO Parent is left without any bits set in its Path
Control field, then that a unicast DAO message MUST NOT be sent
to that DAO parent for this attempt.
7.1.5. Operation of DAO Non-storing Nodes
1. In the non-storing mode of operation, each node sending a DAO
message to its DODAG Parents will include a RPL Target option to
describe itself, followed by RPL Transit Information option(s) to
describe its parents. This information is sufficient for the
DODAG Root to collect the DODAG topology and construct source
routes in the downward direction.
2. In the non-storing mode of operation, each node receiving a DAO
message will arrange to pass the content of the DAO message along
to the DODAG Root. When possible the content of DAO messages may
be aggregated.
3. When a DAO is received from a child by a node who will not store
a routing table entry for the DAO, the node MUST schedule to pass
the DAO contents along to its DAO parents.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
7.1.6. Scheduling to Send DAO (or No-Path)
1. An implementation SHOULD arrange to rate-limit the sending of
DAOs.
2. When scheduling to send a DAO, an implementation SHOULD
equivalently start a timer (DelayDAO) to delay sending the DAO.
If the DelayDAO timer is already running then the DAO may be
considered as already scheduled, and implementation SHOULD leave
the timer running at its present duration.
o When computing the delay before sending a DAO, in order to
increase the effectiveness of aggregation, an implementation MAY
allow time to receive DAOs from its sub-DODAG prior to emitting
DAOs to its DAO Parents.
* Suppose there is an implementation parameter DAO_LATENCY which
represents the maximum expected time for a DAO operation to
traverse the LLN from the farthest node to the root. The
scheduled delay in such cases may be, for example, such that
DAO_LATENCY/DAGRank(self_rank) <= DelayDAO < DAO_LATENCY/
DAGRank(parent_rank), where DAGRank() is defined as in
Section 3.5.2, such that nodes deeper in the DODAG may tend to
report DAO messages first before their parent nodes will report
DAO messages. Note that this suggestion is intended as an
optimization to allow efficient aggregation -- it is not
required for correct operation in the general case.
7.1.7. Triggering DAO Message from the Sub-DODAG
Triggering DAO messages from the Sub-DODAG occurs by using the
following control fields with the rules described below:
The DTSN field from the DIO is a sequence number that is part of the
mechanism to trigger DAO messages. The motivation to use a sequence
number is to provide some means of reliable signaling to the sub-
DODAG. Whereas a control flag that is activated for a short time may
be unobserved by the sub-DODAG if the triggering DIO messages are
lost, the DTSN increment may be observed later even if some
intervening DIO messages have been lost.
The 'T' flag provides a way to signal the refresh of DAO information
over the entire DODAG version. Whereas a DTSN increment may only
trigger a DAO refresh as far as the next storing node (because a
storing node will not increment its own DTSN in response, as
described in the rules below), the assertion of the 'T' flag in
conjunction with an incremented DTSN will result in a DAO refresh
from the entire DODAG.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
The control fields are used to trigger DAO messages as follows:
1. A DAO Trigger Sequence Number (DTSN) MUST be maintained by each
node per RPL Instance. The DTSN, in conjunction with the 'T'
flag from the DIO message, provides a means by which DAO messages
may be reliably triggered in the event of topology change.
2. The DTSN MUST be advertised by the node in the DIO message.
3. A node keeps track of the DTSN that it has heard from the last
DIO from each of its DAO Parents. Note that there is one DTSN
maintained per DAO Parent- each DAO Parent may independently
increment it at will.
4. DAO Transmission SHOULD be scheduled when a new parent is added
to the DAO Parent set.
5. A node that receives a newly incremented DTSN from a DAO Parent
MUST schedule a DAO transmission.
o In storing mode operation, when a node sees a DTSN increment, it
is caused to reissue its entire set of routing table entries
learned from DAO messages (or an aggregated subset thereof), but
will not need to increment its own DTSN.
o In either storing or non-storing modes of operation, when a node
sees a DTSN increment AND the 'T' flag is set, it does increment
its own DTSN as well. The 'T' flag 'punches through' all nodes,
causing all routing state from the entire sub-DODAG to be
refreshed.
7.1.8. Sending DAO Messages to DAO Parents
1. DAO Messages sent to DAO Parents MUST be unicast.
* The IPv6 Source Address is a link local address of the node
sending the DAO message.
* The IPv6 Destination Address is a link local address of the
DAO parent.
2. A node MUST send the DAO with the same sequence to all its DAO
parents that are to be used on the way back to the DAO target.
3. When using source routing, a Destination that builds the DAO also
indicates its parent in the DAO as a Transit Information option.
If the node has multiple DAO parents, it MAY include one Transit
Information Option per parent and pass the DAO to one or more
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
parent. The Transit Information option indicates the preference
for that parent encoded in the Path Control bitfield.
4. When the appointed time arrives (DelayDAO) for the transmission
of DAO messages (with jitter as appropriate) for the requested
entries, the implementation MAY aggregate the the entries into a
reduced numbers of DAOs to be reported to each parent, and
perform compression if possible.
5. Note: it is NOT RECOMMENDED that a DAO Transmission (No-Path) be
scheduled when a DAO Parent is removed from the DAO Parent set.
6. A node MAY set the K flag in a unicast DAO message to solicit a
unicast DAO-ACK in response in order to confirm the attempt. A
node receiving a unicast DAO message with the K flag set SHOULD
respond with a DAO-ACK. A node receiving a DAO message without
the K flag set MAY respond with a DAO-ACK, especially to report
an error condition.
7.1.9. Multicast Destination Advertisement Messages
A special case of DAO operation, distinct from unicast DAO operation,
is multicast DAO operation which may be used to populate '1-hop'
routing table entries.
1. A node MAY multicast a DAO message to the link-local scope all-
nodes multicast address FF02::1.
2. A multicast DAO message MUST be used only to advertise
information about self, i.e. prefixes directly connected to or
owned by this node, such as a multicast group that the node is
subscribed to or a global address owned by the node.
3. A multicast DAO message MUST NOT be used to relay connectivity
information learned (e.g. through unicast DAO) from another node.
4. Information obtained from a multicast DAO MAY be installed in the
routing table and MAY be propagated by a node in unicast DAOs.
5. A node MUST NOT perform any other DAO related processing on a
received multicast DAO, in particular a node MUST NOT perform the
actions of a DAO parent upon receipt of a multicast DAO.
o The multicast DAO may be used to enable direct P2P communication,
without needing the RPL routing structure to relay the packets.
o The multicast DAO does not presume any DODAG relationship between
the emitter and the receiver.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
8. Packet Forwarding and Loop Avoidance/Detection
8.1. Suggestions for Packet Forwarding
When forwarding a packet to a destination, precedence is given to
selection of a next-hop successor as follows:
1. This specification only covers how a successor is selected from
the DODAG version that matches the RPLInstanceID marked in the
IPv6 header of the packet being forwarded. Routing outside the
instance can be done as long as additional rules are put in place
such as strict ordering of instances and routing protocols to
protect against loops.
2. If a local administrative preference favors a route that has been
learned from a different routing protocol than RPL, then use that
successor.
3. If there is an entry in the routing table matching the
destination that has been learned from a multicast destination
advertisement (e.g. the destination is a one-hop neighbor), then
use that successor.
4. If there is an entry in the routing table matching the
destination that has been learned from a unicast destination
advertisement (e.g. the destination is located down the sub-
DODAG), then use that successor. If there are DAO Path Control
bits associated with multiple successors, then consult the Path
Control bits to order the successors by preference when choosing.
5. If there is a DODAG version offering a route to a prefix matching
the destination, then select one of those DODAG parents as a
successor according to the OF and routing metrics.
6. Any other as-yet-unattempted DODAG parent may be chosen for the
next attempt to forward a unicast packet when no better match
exists.
7. If there is a DODAG version offering a route to a prefix matching
the destination, but all DODAG parents have been tried and are
temporarily unavailable (as determined by the forwarding
procedure), then select a DODAG sibling as a successor (after
appropriate packet marking for loop detection as described in
Section 8.2.
8. Finally, if no DODAG siblings are available, the packet is
dropped. ICMP Destination Unreachable may be invoked (an
inconsistency is detected).
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
TTL must be decremented when forwarding. If the packet is being
forwarded via a sibling, then the TTL may be decremented more
aggressively (by more than one) to limit the impact of possible
loops.
Note that the chosen successor MUST NOT be the neighbor that was the
predecessor of the packet (split horizon), except in the case where
it is intended for the packet to change from an up to an down flow,
such as switching from DIO routes to DAO routes as the destination is
neared.
8.2. Loop Avoidance and Detection
RPL loop avoidance mechanisms are kept simple and designed to
minimize churn and states. Loops may form for a number of reasons,
from control packet loss to sibling forwarding. RPL includes a
reactive loop detection technique that protects from meltdown and
triggers repair of broken paths.
RPL loop detection uses information that is placed into the packet.
A future version of this specification will detail how this
information is carried with the packet (e.g. a hop-by-hop option
([I-D.hui-6man-rpl-option]) or summarized somehow into the flow
label). For the purpose of RPL operations, the information carried
with a packet is constructed follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|S|R|F|0|0|0|0| RPLInstanceID | SenderRank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RPL Packet Information
Down 'O' bit: 1-bit flag indicating whether the packet is expected
to progress up or down. A router sets the 'O' bit when the
packet is expect to progress down (using DAO routes), and
resets it when forwarding towards the root of the DODAG
version. A host or RPL leaf node MUST set the bit to 0.
Sibling 'S' bit: 1-bit flag indicating whether the packet has been
forwarded via a sibling at the present rank, and denotes a risk
of a sibling loop. A host or RPL leaf node MUST set the bit to
0.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Rank-Error 'R' bit: 1-bit flag indicating whether a rank error was
detected. A rank error is detected when there is a mismatch in
the relative ranks and the direction as indicated in the 'O'
bit. A host or RPL leaf node MUST set the bit to 0.
Forwarding-Error 'F' bit: 1-bit flag indicating that this node can
not forward the packet further towards the destination. The
'F' bit might be set by sibling that can not forward to a
parent a packet with the Sibling 'S' bit set, or by a child
node that does not have a route to destination for a packet
with the down 'O' bit set. A host or RPL leaf node MUST set
the bit to 0.
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the DODAG instance along which
the packet is sent.
SenderRank: 16-bit field set to zero by the source and to
DAGRank(rank) by a router that forwards inside the RPL network.
8.2.1. Source Node Operation
If the source is aware of the RPLInstanceID that is preferred for the
packet, then it MUST set the RPLInstanceID field associated with the
packet accordingly, otherwise it MUST set it to the
RPL_DEFAULT_INSTANCE.
8.2.2. Router Operation
8.2.2.1. Instance Forwarding
Instance IDs are used to avoid loops between DODAGs from different
origins. DODAGs that constructed for antagonistic constraints might
contain paths that, if mixed together, would yield loops. Those
loops are avoided by forwarding a packet along the DODAG that is
associated to a given instance.
The RPLInstanceID is associated by the source with the packet. This
RPLInstanceID MUST match the RPL Instance onto which the packet is
placed by any node, be it a host or router. For traffic originating
outside of the RPL domain there may be a mapping occurring at the
gateway into the RPL domain, possibly based on an encoding within the
flow label. This aspect of RPL operation is to be clarified in a
future version of this specification.
When a router receives a packet that specifies a given RPLInstanceID
and the node can forward the packet along the DODAG associated to
that instance, then the router MUST do so and leave the RPLInstanceID
value unchanged.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
If any node can not forward a packet along the DODAG associated to
the RPLInstanceID, then the node SHOULD discard the packet and send
an ICMP error message.
8.2.2.2. DAG Inconsistency Loop Detection
The DODAG is inconsistent if the direction of a packet does not match
the rank relationship. A receiver detects an inconsistency if it
receives a packet with either:
the 'O' bit set (to down) from a node of a higher rank.
the 'O' bit reset (for up) from a node of a lesser rank.
the 'S' bit set (to sibling) from a node of a different rank.
When the DODAG root increments the DODAGVersionNumber a temporary
rank discontinuity may form between the next version and the prior
version, in particular if nodes are adjusting their rank in the next
version and deferring their migration into the next version. A
router that is still a member of the prior version may choose to
forward a packet to a (future) parent that is in the next version.
In some cases this could cause the parent to detect an inconsistency
because the rank-ordering in the prior version is not necessarily the
same as in the next version and the packet may be judged to not be
making forward progress. If the sending router is aware that the
chosen successor has already joined the next version, then the
sending router MUST update the SenderRank to INFINITE_RANK as it
forwards the packets across the discontinuity into the next DODAG
version in order to avoid a false detection of rank inconsistency.
One inconsistency along the path is not considered as a critical
error and the packet may continue. But a second detection along the
path of a same packet should not occur and the packet is dropped.
This process is controlled by the Rank-Error bit associated with the
packet. When an inconsistency is detected on a packet, if the Rank-
Error bit was not set then the Rank-Error bit is set. If it was set
the packet is discarded and the trickle timer is reset.
8.2.2.3. Sibling Loop Avoidance
When a packet is forwarded along siblings, it cannot be checked for
forward progress and may loop between siblings. Experimental
evidence has shown that one sibling hop can be very useful and is
generally sufficient to avoid loops. Based on that evidence, this
specification enforces the simple rule that a packet may not make 2
sibling hops in a row.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
When a host issues a packet or when a router forwards a packet to a
non-sibling, the Sibling bit in the packet must be reset. When a
router forwards to a sibling: if the Sibling bit was not set then the
Sibling bit is set. If the Sibling bit was set then then the router
SHOULD return the packet to the sibling that that passed it with the
Forwarding-Error 'F' bit set and the 'S' bit left untouched.
8.2.2.4. DAO Inconsistency Loop Detection and Recovery
A DAO inconsistency happens when router that has an down DAO route
via a child that is a remnant from an obsolete state that is not
matched in the child. With DAO inconsistency loop recovery, a packet
can be used to recursively explore and cleanup the obsolete DAO
states along a sub-DODAG.
In a general manner, a packet that goes down should never go up
again. If DAO inconsistency loop recovery is applied, then the
router SHOULD send the packet back to the parent that passed it with
the Forwarding-Error 'F' bit set and the 'O' bit left untouched.
Otherwise the router MUST silently discard the packet.
8.2.2.5. Forward Path Recovery
Upon receiving a packet with a Forwarding-Error bit set, the node
MUST remove the routing states that caused forwarding to that
neighbor, clear the Forwarding-Error bit and attempt to send the
packet again. The packet may be sent to an alternate neighbor. If
that alternate neighbor still has an inconsistent DAO state via this
node, the process will recurse, this node will set the Forwarding-
Error 'F' bit and the routing state in the alternate neighbor will be
cleaned up as well.
9. Multicast Operation
This section describes further the multicast routing operations over
an IPv6 RPL network, and specifically how unicast DAOs can be used to
relay group registrations up. Wherever the following text mentions
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD), one can read MLDv1 ([RFC2710]) or
MLDv2 ([RFC3810]).
As is traditional, a listener uses a protocol such as MLD with a
router to register to a multicast group.
Along the path between the router and the DODAG root, MLD requests
are mapped and transported as DAO messages within the RPL protocol;
each hop coalesces the multiple requests for a same group as a single
DAO message to the parent(s), in a fashion similar to proxy IGMP, but
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
recursively between child router and parent up to the root.
A router might select to pass a listener registration DAO message to
its preferred parent only, in which case multicast packets coming
back might be lost for all of its sub-DODAG if the transmission fails
over that link. Alternatively the router might select to copy
additional parents as it would do for DAO messages advertising
unicast destinations, in which case there might be duplicates that
the router will need to prune.
As a result, multicast routing states are installed in each router on
the way from the listeners to the root, enabling the root to copy a
multicast packet to all its children routers that had issued a DAO
message including a DAO for that multicast group, as well as all the
attached nodes that registered over MLD.
For unicast traffic, it is expected that the grounded root of an
DODAG terminates RPL and MAY redistribute the RPL routes over the
external infrastructure using whatever routing protocol is used in
the other routing domain. For multicast traffic, the root MAY proxy
MLD for all the nodes attached to the RPL domain (this would be
needed if the multicast source is located in the external
infrastructure). For such a source, the packet will be replicated as
it flows down the DODAG based on the multicast routing table entries
installed from the DAO message.
For a source inside the DODAG, the packet is passed to the preferred
parents, and if that fails then to the alternates in the DODAG. The
packet is also copied to all the registered children, except for the
one that passed the packet. Finally, if there is a listener in the
external infrastructure then the DODAG root has to further propagate
the packet into the external infrastructure.
As a result, the DODAG Root acts as an automatic proxy Rendezvous
Point for the RPL network, and as source towards the Internet for all
multicast flows started in the RPL LLN. So regardless of whether the
root is actually attached to the Internet, and regardless of whether
the DODAG is grounded or floating, the root can serve inner multicast
streams at all times.
10. Maintenance of Routing Adjacency
The selection of successors, along the default paths up along the
DODAG, or along the paths learned from destination advertisements
down along the DODAG, leads to the formation of routing adjacencies
that require maintenance.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
In IGPs such as OSPF [RFC4915] or IS-IS [RFC5120], the maintenance of
a routing adjacency involves the use of Keepalive mechanisms (Hellos)
or other protocols such as BFD ([I-D.ietf-bfd-base]) and MANET
Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP [I-D.ietf-manet-nhdp]).
Unfortunately, such an approach is not desirable in constrained
environments such as LLN and would lead to excessive control traffic
in light of the data traffic with a negative impact on both link
loads and nodes resources. Overhead to maintain the routing
adjacency should be minimized. Furthermore, it is not always
possible to rely on the link or transport layer to provide
information of the associated link state. The network layer needs to
fall back on its own mechanism.
Thus RPL makes use of a different approach consisting of probing the
neighbor using a Neighbor Solicitation message (see [RFC4861]). The
reception of a Neighbor Advertisement (NA) message with the
"Solicited Flag" set is used to verify the validity of the routing
adjacency. Such mechanism MAY be used prior to sending a data
packet. This allows for detecting whether or not the routing
adjacency is still valid, and should it not be the case, select
another feasible successor to forward the packet.
11. Guidelines for Objective Functions
An Objective Function (OF) allows for the selection of a DODAG to
join, and a number of peers in that DODAG as parents. The OF is used
to compute an ordered list of parents. The OF is also responsible to
compute the rank of the device within the DODAG version.
The Objective Function is indicated in the DIO message using an
Objective Code Point (OCP), as specified in
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics], and indicates the method that must
be used to construct the DODAG. The Objective Code Points are
specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics], [I-D.ietf-roll-of0],
and related companion specifications.
11.1. Objective Function Behavior
Most Objective Functions are expected to follow the same abstract
behavior:
o The parent selection is triggered each time an event indicates
that a potential next hop information is updated. This might
happen upon the reception of a DIO message, a timer elapse, all
DODAG parents are unavailable, or a trigger indicating that the
state of a candidate neighbor has changed.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
o An OF scans all the interfaces on the device. Although there may
typically be only one interface in most application scenarios,
there might be multiple of them and an interface might be
configured to be usable or not for RPL operation. An interface
can also be configured with a preference or dynamically learned to
be better than another by some heuristics that might be link-layer
dependent and are out of scope. Finally an interface might or not
match a required criterion for an Objective Function, for instance
a degree of security. As a result some interfaces might be
completely excluded from the computation, while others might be
more or less preferred.
o An OF scans all the candidate neighbors on the possible interfaces
to check whether they can act as a router for a DODAG. There
might be multiple of them and a candidate neighbor might need to
pass some validation tests before it can be used. In particular,
some link layers require experience on the activity with a router
to enable the router as a next hop.
o An OF computes self's rank by adding to the rank of the candidate
a value representing the relative locations of self and the
candidate in the DODAG version.
* The increase in rank must be at least MinHopRankIncrease.
* To keep loop avoidance and metric optimization in alignment,
the increase in rank should reflect any increase in the metric
value. For example, with a purely additive metric such as ETX,
the increase in rank can be made proportional to the increase
in the metric.
* Candidate neighbors that would cause self's rank to increase
are not considered for parent selection
o Candidate neighbors that advertise an OF incompatible with the set
of OF specified by the policy functions are ignored.
o As it scans all the candidate neighbors, the OF keeps the current
best parent and compares its capabilities with the current
candidate neighbor. The OF defines a number of tests that are
critical to reach the objective. A test between the routers
determines an order relation.
* If the routers are equal for that relation then the next test
is attempted between the routers,
* Else the best of the two routers becomes the current best
parent and the scan continues with the next candidate neighbor
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
* Some OFs may include a test to compare the ranks that would
result if the node joined either router
o When the scan is complete, the preferred parent is elected and
self's rank is computed as the preferred parent rank plus the step
in rank with that parent.
o Other rounds of scans might be necessary to elect alternate
parents and siblings. In the next rounds:
* Candidate neighbors that are not in the same DODAG are ignored
* Candidate neighbors that are of greater rank than self are
ignored
* Candidate neighbors of an equal rank to self (siblings) are
ignored for parent selection
* Candidate neighbors of a lesser rank than self (non-siblings)
are preferred
12. RPL Constants and Variables
Following is a summary of RPL constants and variables.
BASE_RANK This is the rank for a virtual root that might be used to
coordinate multiple roots. BASE_RANK has a value of 0.
ROOT_RANK This is the rank for a DODAG root. ROOT_RANK has a value
of MinHopRankIncrease (as advertised by the DODAG root), such
that DAGRank(ROOT_RANK) is 1.
INFINITE_RANK This is the constant maximum for the rank.
INFINITE_RANK has a value of 0xFFFF.
RPL_DEFAULT_INSTANCE This is the RPLInstanceID that is used by this
protocol by a node without any overriding policy.
RPL_DEFAULT_INSTANCE has a value of 0.
DEFAULT_PATH_CONTROL_SIZE TBD (To be determined)
DEFAULT_DIO_INTERVAL_MIN TBD (To be determined)
DEFAULT_DIO_INTERVAL_DOUBLINGS TBD (To be determined)
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
DEFAULT_DIO_REDUNDANCY_CONSTANT TBD (To be determined)
DEFAULT_MIN_HOP_RANK_INCREASE TBD a power of two (To be determined)
DIO Timer One instance per DODAG that a node is a member of. Expiry
triggers DIO message transmission. Trickle timer with variable
interval in [0, DIOIntervalMin..2^DIOIntervalDoublings]. See
Section 6.3.1
DAG Version Increment Timer Up to one instance per DODAG that the
node is acting as DODAG root of. May not be supported in all
implementations. Expiry triggers increment of
DODAGVersionNumber, causing a new series of updated DIO message
to be sent. Interval should be chosen appropriate to
propagation time of DODAG and as appropriate to application
requirements (e.g. response time vs. overhead).
DelayDAO Timer Up to one instance per DAO parent (the subset of
DODAG parents chosen to receive destination advertisements) per
DODAG. Expiry triggers sending of DAO message to the DAO
parent. See Section 7.1.6
RemoveTimer Up to one instance per DAO entry per neighbor (i.e.
those neighbors that have given DAO messages to this node as a
DODAG parent) Expiry triggers a change in state for the DAO
entry, setting up to do unreachable (No-Path) advertisements or
immediately deallocating the DAO entry if there are no DAO
parents. See Section 7.1.4.1.1.3
13. Manageability Considerations
The aim of this section is to give consideration to the manageability
of RPL, and how RPL will be operated in LLN beyond the use of a MIB
module. The scope of this section is to consider the following
aspects of manageability: fault management, configuration, accounting
and performance.
13.1. Control of Function and Policy
13.1.1. Initialization Mode
When a node is first powered up, it may either choose to stay silent
and not send any multicast DIO message until it has joined a DODAG,
or to immediately root a transient DODAG and start sending multicast
DIO messages. A RPL implementation SHOULD allow configuring whether
the node should stay silent or should start advertising DIO messages.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Furthermore, the implementation SHOULD to allow configuring whether
or not the node should start sending an DIS message as an initial
probe for nearby DODAGs, or should simply wait until it received DIO
messages from other nodes that are part of existing DODAGs.
13.1.2. DIO Base option
RPL specifies a number of protocol parameters.
A RPL implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following routing
protocol parameters, which are further described in Section 5.3:
DAGPreference
RPLInstanceID
DAGObjectiveCodePoint
DODAGID
Routing Information
Prefix Information
DIOIntervalDoublings
DIOIntervalMin
DIORedundancyConstant
DAG Root behavior: In some cases, a node may not want to permanently
act as a DODAG root if it cannot join a grounded DODAG. For
example a battery-operated node may not want to act as a DODAG
root for a long period of time. Thus a RPL implementation MAY
support the ability to configure whether or not a node could
act as a DODAG root for a configured period of time.
DODAG Table Entry Suppression A RPL implementation SHOULD provide
the ability to configure a timer after the expiration of which
logical equivalent of the DODAG table that contains all the
records about a DODAG is suppressed, to be invoked if the DODAG
parent set becomes empty.
13.1.3. Trickle Timers
A RPL implementation makes use of trickle timer to govern the sending
of DIO message. Such an algorithm is determined a by a set of
configurable parameters that are then advertised by the DODAG root
along the DODAG in DIO messages.
For each DODAG, a RPL implementation MUST allow for the monitoring of
the following parameters, further described in Section 6.3.1:
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
I
T
C
I_min
I_doublings
A RPL implementation SHOULD provide a command (for example via API,
CLI, or SNMP MIB) whereby any procedure that detects an inconsistency
may cause the trickle timer to reset.
13.1.4. DAG Version Number Increment
A RPL implementation may allow by configuration at the DODAG root to
refresh the DODAG states by updating the DODAGVersionNumber. A RPL
implementation SHOULD allow configuring whether or not periodic or
event triggered mechanism are used by the DODAG root to control
DODAGVersionNumber change.
13.1.5. Destination Advertisement Timers
The following set of parameters of the DAO messages SHOULD be
configurable:
o The DelayDAO timer
o The Remove timer
13.1.6. Policy Control
DAG discovery enables nodes to implement different policies for
selecting their DODAG parents.
A RPL implementation SHOULD allow configuring the set of acceptable
or preferred Objective Functions (OF) referenced by their Objective
Codepoints (OCPs) for a node to join a DODAG, and what action should
be taken if none of a node's candidate neighbors advertise one of the
configured allowable Objective Functions.
A node in an LLN may learn routing information from different routing
protocols including RPL. It is in this case desirable to control via
administrative preference which route should be favored. An
implementation SHOULD allow for specifying an administrative
preference for the routing protocol from which the route was learned.
13.1.7. Data Structures
Some RPL implementation may limit the size of the candidate neighbor
list in order to bound the memory usage, in which case some otherwise
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
viable candidate neighbors may not be considered and simply dropped
from the candidate neighbor list.
A RPL implementation MAY provide an indicator on the size of the
candidate neighbor list.
13.2. Information and Data Models
The information and data models necessary for the operation of RPL
will be defined in a separate document specifying the RPL SNMP MIB.
13.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The aim of this section is to describe the various RPL mechanisms
specified to monitor the protocol.
As specified in Section 3.1, an implementation is expected to
maintain a set of data structures in support of DODAG discovery:
o The candidate neighbors data structure
o For each DODAG:
* A set of DODAG parents
13.3.1. Candidate Neighbor Data Structure
A node in the candidate neighbor list is a node discovered by the
some means and qualified to potentially become of neighbor or a
sibling (with high enough local confidence). A RPL implementation
SHOULD provide a way monitor the candidate neighbors list with some
metric reflecting local confidence (the degree of stability of the
neighbors) measured by some metrics.
A RPL implementation MAY provide a counter reporting the number of
times a candidate neighbor has been ignored, should the number of
candidate neighbors exceeds the maximum authorized value.
13.3.2. Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) Table
For each DAG, a RPL implementation is expected to keep track of the
following DODAG table values:
o DODAGID
o DAGObjectiveCodePoint
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
o A set of prefixes offered upwards along the DODAG
o A set of DODAG Parents
o timer to govern the sending of DIO messages for the DODAG
o DODAGVersionNumber
The set of DODAG parents structure is itself a table with the
following entries:
o A reference to the neighboring device which is the DAG parent
o A record of most recent information taken from the DAG Information
Object last processed from the DODAG Parent
o A flag reporting if the Parent is a DAO Parent as described in
Section 7
13.3.3. Routing Table
For each route provisioned by RPL operation, a RPL implementation
MUST keep track of the following:
o Routing Information (prefix, prefix length, ...)
o Lifetime Timer
o Next Hop
o Next Hop Interface
o Flag indicating that the route was provisioned from one of:
* Unicast DAO message
* DIO message
* Multicast DAO message
13.3.4. Other RPL Monitoring Parameters
A RPL implementation SHOULD provide a counter reporting the number of
a times the node has detected an inconsistency with respect to a
DODAG parent, e.g. if the DODAGID has changed.
A RPL implementation MAY log the reception of a malformed DIO message
along with the neighbor identification if avialable.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
13.3.5. RPL Trickle Timers
A RPL implementation operating on a DODAG root MUST allow for the
configuration of the following trickle parameters:
o The DIOIntervalMin expressed in ms
o The DIOIntervalDoublings
o The DIORedundancyConstant
A RPL implementation MAY provide a counter reporting the number of
times an inconsistency (and thus the trickle timer has been reset).
13.4. Verifying Correct Operation
This section has to be completed in further revision of this document
to list potential Operations and Management (OAM) tools that could be
used for verifying the correct operation of RPL.
13.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
RPL does not have any impact on the operation of existing protocols.
13.6. Impact on Network Operation
To be completed.
14. Security Considerations
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| TBD |
| Under Construction |
| Deference given to Security Design Team |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
14.1. Overview
From a security perspective, RPL networks are no different from any
other network. They are vulnerable to passive eavesdropping attacks
and potentially even active tampering when physical access to a wire
is not required to participate in communications. The very nature of
ad hoc networks and their cost objectives impose additional security
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
constraints, which perhaps make these networks the most difficult
environments to secure. Devices are low-cost and have limited
capabilities in terms of computing power, available storage, and
power drain; and it cannot always be assumed they have neither a
trusted computing base nor a high-quality random number generator
aboard. Communications cannot rely on the online availability of a
fixed infrastructure and might involve short-term relationships
between devices that may never have communicated before. These
constraints might severely limit the choice of cryptographic
algorithms and protocols and influence the design of the security
architecture because the establishment and maintenance of trust
relationships between devices need to be addressed with care. In
addition, battery lifetime and cost constraints put severe limits on
the security overhead these networks can tolerate, something that is
of far less concern with higher bandwidth networks. Most of these
security architectural elements can be implemented at higher layers
and may, therefore, be considered to be outside the scope of this
standard. Special care, however, needs to be exercised with respect
to interfaces to these higher layers.
The security mechanisms in this standard are based on symmetric-key
and public-key cryptography and use keys that are to be provided by
higher layer processes. The establishment and maintenance of these
keys are outside the scope of this standard. The mechanisms assume a
secure implementation of cryptographic operations and secure and
authentic storage of keying material.
The security mechanisms specified provide particular combinations of
the following security services:
Data confidentiality: Assurance that transmitted information is only
disclosed to parties for which it is intended.
Data authenticity: Assurance of the source of transmitted
information (and, hereby, that information was not
modified in transit).
Replay protection: Assurance that a duplicate of transmitted
information is detected.
Timeliness (delay protection): Assurance that transmitted
information was received in a timely manner.
The actual protection provided can be adapted on a per-packet basis
and allows for varying levels of data authenticity (to minimize
security overhead in transmitted packets where required) and for
optional data confidentiality. When nontrivial protection is
required, replay protection is always provided.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Replay protection is provided via the use of a non-repeating value
(nonce) in the packet protection process and storage of some status
information for each originating device on the receiving device,
which allows detection of whether this particular nonce value was
used previously by the originating device. In addition, so-called
delay protection is provided amongst those devices that have a
loosely synchronized clock on board. The acceptable time delay can
be adapted on a per-packet basis and allows for varying latencies (to
facilitate longer latencies in packets transmitted over a multi-hop
communication path).
Cryptographic protection may use a key shared between two peer
devices (link key) or a key shared among a group of devices (group
key), thus allowing some flexibility and application-specific
tradeoffs between key storage and key maintenance costs versus the
cryptographic protection provided. If a group key is used for peer-
to-peer communication, protection is provided only against outsider
devices and not against potential malicious devices in the key-
sharing group.
Data authenticity may be provided using symmetric-key based or
public-key based techniques. With public-key based techniques (via
signatures), one corroborates evidence as to the unique originator of
transmitted information, whereas with symmetric-key based techniques
data authenticity is only provided relative to devices in a key-
sharing group. Thus, public-key based authentication may be useful
in scenarios that require a more fine-grained authentication than can
be provided with symmetric-key based authentication techniques alone,
such as with group communications (broadcast, multicast), or in
scenarios that require non-repudiation.
14.2. Functional Description of Packet Protection
14.2.1. Transmission of Outgoing Packets
This section describes the transmission of secured RPL control
packets. Give an outgoing RPL control packet and required security
protection, this section describes how RPL generates the secured
packet to transmit. It describes the order of cryptographic
operations to provide the required protection.
A RPL node MUST set the security section in the RPL packet to
describes the required protection level.
The Counter field of the security header MUST be an increment of the
last Counter field transmitted.
If the RPL packet is not a response to a Consistency Check message,
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
the node MAY set the Counter Compression field of the security
option. If the packet is a response to a Consistency Check message,
the node MUST clear the Counter Compression field.
A node sets the Key Identifier Mode (KIM) of the packet based on its
understanding of what keys destinations have.
A node MUST replaced the original packet payload with that payload
encrypted using the security protection, key, and nonce specified in
the security section.
14.2.2. Reception of Incoming Packets
This section describes the reception of a secured RPL packet. Given
an incoming RPL packet, this section describes now RPL generates an
unencrypted version of the packet and validates its integrity.
The receiver uses the security control field of the security section
to determine what processing to do. If the described level of
security does not meet locally maintained security policies, a node
MAY discard the packet without further processing. These policies
can include security levels, keys used, or source identifiers.
Using a nonce derived from the Counter field and other information
(as described in Section Figure 21), the receiver checks the
integrity of the packet by comparing the received MAC with the
computed MAC. If this integrity check does not pass, a node MUST
discard the packet.
RPL uses the key information described in a RPL message to decrypt
its contents as necessary. Once a message has passed its integrity
checks and been successfully decrypted, the node can update its local
security information, such as the source's expected counter value for
counter compression. A node MUST NOT update security information on
receipt of a message that fails security policy checks, integrity
checks, or decryption.
14.2.3. Cryptographic Mode of Operation
The cryptographic mode of operation used is based on the CCM mode of
operation specified with [TBDREF] and the block-cipher AES-128
[TBDREF]. This mode of operation is widely supported by existing
implementations and coincides with the CCM* mode of operation
specified with [TBDREF].
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
14.2.3.1. Nonce
The so-called nonce is constructed as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Source Identifier +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reserved | LVL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 21: CCM* Nonce
Source Identifier: 8 bytes. Source Identifier is set to the logical
identifier of the originator of the protected packet.
Counter: 4 bytes. Counter is set to the (uncompressed) value of the
corresponding field in the Security option of the RPL control
message.
Security Level (LVL): 3 bits. Security Level is set to the value of
the corresponding field in the Security option of the RPL
control message.
Unassigned bits of the nonce are reserved. They MUST be set to zero
when constructing the nonce.
All fields of the nonce shall be represented is most-significant-
octet and most-significant-bit first order.
14.3. Protecting RPL ICMPv6 messages
For a RPL ICMPv6 message, the entire packet is within the scope of
RPL security. The message authentication code is calculated over the
entire IPv6 packet. This calculation is done before any compression
that lower layers may apply. The IPv6 and ICMPv6 headers are never
encrypted. The body of the RPL ICMPv6 message MAY be encrypted,
starting from the first byte after the security information and
continuing to the end of the packet.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
14.4. Security State Machine
A DAG root starting a DODAG sets the RPL routing security policy for
the entire DODAG.
A member of a secure DODAG MUST conform to the policy set by the DAG
root. When starting a secure DODAG, the DAG root will send secure
DIO messages. A node attempting to join the DODAG will send a secure
Authentication Request (AREQ) to the DAG root. Nodes that are not
authenticated in a secure DODAG will be unable to generate properly
constructed secured RPL packets. These nodes are in state
"unauthenticated". A member of a secure DODAG MUST forward an AREQ
packet to the DAG root, and MUST NOT forward any other type of packet
from an unauthenticated node.
The DAG root may choose to respond to the AREQ with an ARSP packet.
This packet will provide the authenticating node with the
cryptographic materials necessary to participate in RPL routing.
Some authentication flows may involve the exchange of more than one
AREQ or ARSP packets.
The simplest authentication flow will involve the use of a single
pre-installed network-wide authentication key. The installation of
this key is out of scope of this document. The authenticating node
will use the pre-installed key to calculate a MIC for the AREQ
packet. The DODAG root will verify the authenticity of the
authenticating node using the same key. The DODAG root, having
previously chosen a single random instance-wide shared key, will send
this key, encrypted and authenticated with the pre-installed key, in
the ARSP packet. The authenticating node, decoding this packet with
the pre-installed key, will verify the authenticity of the DODAG
root.
It is assumed that additional authentication and key exchange
mechanisms will be included in future drafts of the document.
Periodic key updates will use the secure KU packet code. The
responsibility for initiating key update will reside with the DODAG
root, and is out of scope of this document.
15. IANA Considerations
15.1. RPL Control Message
The RPL Control Message is an ICMP information message type that is
to be used carry DODAG Information Objects, DODAG Information
Solicitations, and Destination Advertisement Objects in support of
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
RPL operation.
IANA has defined an ICMPv6 Type Number Registry. The suggested type
value for the RPL Control Message is 155, to be confirmed by IANA.
15.2. New Registry for RPL Control Codes
IANA is requested to create a registry, RPL Control Codes, for the
Code field of the ICMPv6 RPL Control Message.
New codes may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action. Each
code should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Code
o Description
o Defining RFC
Three codes are currently defined:
+------+----------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Code | Description | Reference |
+------+----------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 0x00 | DODAG Information Solicitation | This |
| | | document |
| 0x01 | DODAG Information Object | This |
| | | document |
| 0x02 | Destination Advertisement Object | This |
| | | document |
| 0x80 | Secure DODAG Information Solicitation | This |
| | | document |
| 0x81 | Secure DODAG Information Object | This |
| | | document |
| 0x82 | Secure Destination Advertisement Object | This |
| | | document |
| 0x83 | Secure Destination Advertisement Object | This |
| | Acknowledgment | document |
+------+----------------------------------------------+-------------+
RPL Control Codes
15.3. New Registry for the Mode of Operation (MOP) DIO Control Field
IANA is requested to create a registry for the Mode of Operation
(MOP) DIO Control Field, which is contained in the DIO Base.
New fields may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action. Each
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
field should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Mode of Operation
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
Two values are currently defined:
+-----+-------------------------------+---------------+
| MOP | Description | Reference |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 00 | Non-Storing mode of operation | This document |
| 01 | Storing mode of operation | This document |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------------+
DIO Base Flags
15.4. RPL Control Message Option
IANA is requested to create a registry for the RPL Control Message
Options
+-------+-------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Pad1 | This document |
| 1 | PadN | This document |
| 2 | DAG Metric Container | This Document |
| 3 | Routing Information | This Document |
| 4 | DAG Timer Configuration | This Document |
| 5 | RPL Target | This Document |
| 6 | Transit Information | This Document |
| 7 | Solicited Information | This Document |
| 8 | Prefix Information | This Document |
+-------+-------------------------+---------------+
RPL Control Message Options
16. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and
comments from Roger Alexander, Emmanuel Baccelli, Dominique Barthel,
Yusuf Bashir, Phoebus Chen, Mathilde Durvy, Manhar Goindi, Mukul
Goyal, Anders Jagd, JeongGil (John) Ko, Quentin Lampin, Jerry
Martocci, Matteo Paris, Alexandru Petrescu, Joseph Reddy, and Don
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
Sturek.
The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and input provided
by the ROLL Chairs, David Culler and JP Vasseur.
The authors would like to acknowledge prior contributions of Robert
Assimiti, Mischa Dohler, Julien Abeille, Ryuji Wakikawa, Teco Boot,
Patrick Wetterwald, Bryan Mclaughlin, Carlos J. Bernardos, Thomas
Watteyne, Zach Shelby, Caroline Bontoux, Marco Molteni, Billy Moon,
and Arsalan Tavakoli, which have provided useful design
considerations to RPL.
17. Contributors
RPL is the result of the contribution of the following members of the
RPL Author Team, including the editors, and additional contributors
as listed below:
JP Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc
11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy Les Moulineaux, 92782
France
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Thomas Heide Clausen
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, France
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/
Philip Levis
Stanford University
358 Gates Hall, Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-9030
USA
Email: pal@cs.stanford.edu
Richard Kelsey
Ember Corporation
Boston, MA
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
USA
Phone: +1 617 951 1225
Email: kelsey@ember.com
Jonathan W. Hui
Arch Rock Corporation
501 2nd St. Ste. 410
San Francisco, CA 94107
USA
Email: jhui@archrock.com
Kris Pister
Dust Networks
30695 Huntwood Ave.
Hayward, 94544
USA
Email: kpister@dustnetworks.com
Anders Brandt
Sigma Designs
Emdrupvej 26A, 1.
Copenhagen, DK-2100
Denmark
Email: abr@sdesigns.dk
Stephen Dawson-Haggerty
UC Berkeley
Soda Hall, UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
USA
Email: stevedh@cs.berkeley.edu
18. References
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
18.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
18.2. Informative References
[I-D.hui-6man-rpl-option]
Hui, J. and J. Vasseur, "RPL Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams",
draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-00 (work in progress),
March 2010.
[]
Hui, J., Vasseur, J., and D. Culler, "A Source Routing
Header for RPL", draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header-00
(work in progress), May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base-11 (work in progress),
January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-manet-nhdp]
Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., and J. Dean, "Mobile Ad Hoc
Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)",
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-12 (work in progress), March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs]
Martocci, J., Riou, N., Mil, P., and W. Vermeylen,
"Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and
Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-09
(work in progress), January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-of0]
Thubert, P., "RPL Objective Function 0",
draft-ietf-roll-of0-01 (work in progress), February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]
Vasseur, J., Kim, M., Networks, D., and H. Chong, "Routing
Metrics used for Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-06 (work in
progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terminology in Low power And Lossy
Networks", draft-ietf-roll-terminology-03 (work in
progress), March 2010.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle]
Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., and J. Ko, "The Trickle
Algorithm", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-01 (work in progress),
April 2010.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
August 1996.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, July 2004.
[RFC4101] Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101,
June 2005.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 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.
[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.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, June 2007.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.
[RFC5548] Dohler, M., Watteyne, T., Winter, T., and D. Barthel,
"Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy
Networks", RFC 5548, May 2009.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
[RFC5673] Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney,
"Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy
Networks", RFC 5673, October 2009.
[RFC5826] Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation
Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks",
RFC 5826, April 2010.
Appendix A. Requirements
A.1. Protocol Properties Overview
RPL demonstrates the following properties, consistent with the
requirements specified by the application-specific requirements
documents.
A.1.1. IPv6 Architecture
RPL is strictly compliant with layered IPv6 architecture.
Further, RPL is designed with consideration to the practical support
and implementation of IPv6 architecture on devices which may operate
under severe resource constraints, including but not limited to
memory, processing power, energy, and communication. The RPL design
does not presume high quality reliable links, and operates over lossy
links (usually low bandwidth with low packet delivery success rate).
A.1.2. Typical LLN Traffic Patterns
Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P) and Point-to-multipoint (P2MP) traffic
flows from nodes within the LLN from and to egress points are very
common in LLNs. Low power and lossy network Border Router (LBR)
nodes may typically be at the root of such flows, although such flows
are not exclusively rooted at LBRs as determined on an application-
specific basis. In particular, several applications such as building
or home automation do require P2P (Point-to-Point) communication.
As required by the aforementioned routing requirements documents, RPL
supports the installation of multiple paths. The use of multiple
paths include sending duplicated traffic along diverse paths, as well
as to support advanced features such as Class of Service (CoS) based
routing, or simple load balancing among a set of paths (which could
be useful for the LLN to spread traffic load and avoid fast energy
depletion on some, e.g. battery powered, nodes). Conceptually,
multiple instances of RPL can be used to send traffic along different
topology instances, the construction of which is governed by
different Objective Functions (OF). Details of RPL operation in
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
support of multiple instances are beyond the scope of the present
specification.
A.1.3. Constraint Based Routing
The RPL design supports constraint based routing, based on a set of
routing metrics and constraints. The routing metrics and constraints
for links and nodes with capabilities supported by RPL are specified
in a companion document to this specification,
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics]. RPL signals the metrics,
constraints, and related Objective Functions (OFs) in use in a
particular implementation by means of an Objective Code Point (OCP).
Both the routing metrics, constraints, and the OF help determine the
construction of the Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) using a distributed
path computation algorithm.
A.2. Deferred Requirements
NOTE: RPL is still a work in progress. At this time there remain
several unsatisfied application requirements, but these are to be
addressed as RPL is further specified.
Appendix B. Outstanding Issues
This section enumerates some outstanding issues that are to be
addressed in future revisions of the RPL specification.
B.1. Additional Support for P2P Routing
In some situations the baseline mechanism to support arbitrary P2P
traffic, by flowing upwards along the DODAG until a common ancestor
is reached and then flowing down, may not be suitable for all
application scenarios. A related scenario may occur when the down
paths setup along the DODAG by the destination advertisement
mechanism are not the most desirable downward paths for the specific
application scenario (in part because the DODAG links may not be
symmetric). It may be desired to support within RPL the discovery
and installation of more direct routes 'across' the DAG. Such
mechanisms need to be investigated.
B.2. Address / Header Compression
In order to minimize overhead within the LLN it is desirable to
perform some sort of address and/or header compression, perhaps via
labels, addresses aggregation, or some other means. This is still
under investigation.
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-rpl-08 May 2010
B.3. Managing Multiple Instances
A network may run multiple instances of RPL concurrently. Such a
network will require methods for assigning and otherwise managing
RPLInstanceIDs. This will likely be addressed in a separate
document.
Authors' Addresses
Tim Winter (editor)
Email: wintert@acm.org
Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Batiment T3
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
RPL Author Team
IETF ROLL WG
Email: rpl-authors@external.cisco.com
Winter, et al. Expires November 29, 2010 [Page 92]
