Forwarder Policy for Multicast with Admin-Local Scope in the Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)
RFC 7732
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (February 2016) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Van der Stok , Robert Cragie | ||
| Last updated | 2016-02-18 | ||
| Replaces | draft-vanderstok-roll-admin-local-policy | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Ines Robles | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2014-12-08 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7732 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Send notices to | aretana@cisco.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
RFC 7732
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. van der Stok
Request for Comments: 7732 Consultant
Category: Informational R. Cragie
ISSN: 2070-1721 ARM Ltd.
February 2016
Forwarder Policy for Multicast with Admin-Local Scope
in the Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL)
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to specify an automated policy for
the routing of Multicast Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(MPL) multicast messages with Admin-Local scope in a border router.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7732.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 Simplified BSD License.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
1.2. Terminology and Acronyms ...................................4
2. Network Identifier ..............................................4
2.1. IEEE 802.15.4 ..............................................5
2.2. IEEE 802.11 ................................................5
2.3. ITU-T G.9959 ...............................................5
2.4. BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy ....................................5
3. MPL4 Router .....................................................5
3.1. MPL Interface Parameters ...................................6
3.2. Determination of MPL4 Zone .................................6
4. Admin-Local Policy ..............................................7
4.1. Legal Multicast Messages ...................................7
4.2. Forwarding Legal Packets ...................................8
4.2.1. MPL Message .........................................8
4.2.2. Multicast Messages without MPL Option ...............9
4.3. Encryption Rules ...........................................9
5. MPL Domains and Zones ...........................................9
6. Default Parameter Values .......................................10
7. Security Considerations ........................................11
8. References .....................................................12
8.1. Normative References ......................................12
8.2. Informative References ....................................14
Acknowledgements ..................................................15
Authors' Addresses ................................................15
1. Introduction
Multicast scopes are defined in [RFC4291]. [RFC7346] extends the
scope definition with this text:
"Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries are
automatically derived from physical connectivity or other
non-multicast-related configurations. Global scope has no boundary.
The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or
larger are administratively configured."
The Admin-Local scope must therefore be administratively configured.
In this document, "administratively configured" does not imply
actions by a human beyond installing the protocol specified herein.
"Administratively configured" means an automatic derivation as
described in this document.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
This document describes an automated policy for the Multicast
Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (MPL) [RFC7731] forwarding
of multicast messages with Admin-Local scope within a border router
that lies between a network running MPL and some other network. This
policy is in line with the autonomous networking ideas presented in
[RFC7576].
The Realm-Local multicast address is currently used by MPL to
propagate the multicast message to all receivers and forwarders
within a mesh network. The multicast propagation is limited to a
mesh network with a common Layer 2. For example, a Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (LoWPAN) is defined by an
IEEE 802.15.4 Layer 2 mesh network, composed of all connected nodes
sharing the same Personal Area Network (PAN) ID [RFC4944].
The network concept differs between mesh network technologies. This
document maps a general network identifier to the specific network
identifier of existing mesh technologies.
In current and projected deployments, there is a requirement to
propagate a multicast message beyond the boundaries of the mesh
network in which it originated, independent of the mesh technology.
Consider the case where propagation over two mesh networks is
required. In one example, each mesh network has a border router and
the two border routers are connected with an Ethernet link. In
another example, each mesh network is connected to its own network
interface connected to the same border router. In both cases, an
Admin-Local multicast message originating in one network needs to
propagate into the other mesh network. The boundary of the
Admin-Local scope is administratively configured.
This document describes an "MPL4 router" that forwards MPL messages
with a multicast address with Admin-Local scope to all interfaces
connected to links that connect to other MPL-enabled interfaces. The
MPL4 router enables all its interfaces for MPL messages and allocates
an additional variable, MPL_BLOCKED, that either permits or forbids
the forwarding of MPL messages.
The MPL4 router uses the following technique to establish over which
links MPL4 messages must be forwarded: The MPL4 router listens on its
interfaces for the arrival of MPL4 messages. When MPL4 messages
arrive over an interface, the MPL4 router records this interface in
the set of interfaces over which incoming MPL4 messages are
forwarded. The MPL4 router regularly sends MPL4 messages over its
interfaces to provoke the return of MPL4 messages to maintain the set
of forwarding interfaces.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
It is expected that the private network of an organization, building,
or home is connected to the Internet via the edge routers provided by
an ISP. The intention is that MPL messages with multicast addresses
of Admin-Local scope are freely forwarded within the private network
but are never forwarded outside the private network by edge routers.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology and Acronyms
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7731] and [RFC7346].
In addition, the following terms are used in this document:
o MPL4: MPL with Admin-Local scope 4.
o MPL4 message: an MPL Data Message with a destination multicast
address of scope 4.
o MPL4 zone: a convex zone of interconnected interfaces over which
MPL messages with Admin-Local scope propagate. An MPL4 zone is
bounded by a zone as defined in [RFC4007].
o MPL4 router: automatically determines the MPL4 zone in which MPL
messages with Admin-Local scope can be propagated.
2. Network Identifier
Links may have the concept of a channel. For example, in wireless
networks, such a channel is associated with a communication
frequency. Additionally, for some link technologies, several
networks can coexist using the same channel. For these link
technologies, a network identifier exists. The network identifier is
determined by the link technology specification. When no network
identifier exists for a given link, the network identifier has the
value "any".
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
2.1. IEEE 802.15.4
IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 is described in [RFC4944]. A LoWPAN is
composed of the nodes connected by an IEEE 802.15.4 mesh sharing the
same PAN ID. The PAN ID identifies a network in the IEEE 802.15.4
mesh. Several networks with different PAN IDs can coexist on the
same channel [IEEE802.15.4]. The PAN ID of an interface is defined
when the interface is enabled. The value of the network identifier
of an IEEE 802.15.4 link is the value of the PAN ID.
2.2. IEEE 802.11
IP over IEEE 802.11 is described in [RFC5416]. The Service Set
Identifier (SSID) identifies a network in the IEEE 802.11 link.
Several networks with different SSIDs can coexist on the same channel
[IEEE802.11]. The SSID of an interface is defined when the interface
is switched on. The value of the network identifier of an IEEE
802.11 link is the value of the SSID.
2.3. ITU-T G.9959
IPv6 over ITU-T G.9959 is specified in [RFC7428]. The HomeID
identifies a network of connected nodes [G.9959]. Several HomeIDs
can coexist within communication range, but nodes adhering to a
network with a given HomeID cannot communicate with nodes adhering to
a network with a different HomeID. The value of the network
identifier of a G.9959 link is the value of the HomeID.
2.4. BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy
IPv6 over Bluetooth low energy (BTLE) is specified in [RFC7668]. The
medium is specified in [BTLE]. BTLE does not know the concept of
multiple networks in one channel. The value of the network
identifier of a BTLE link is "any".
3. MPL4 Router
The concept of an MPL4 router serves to automatically determine the
MPL4 zone in which MPL messages with a scope 4 multicast address can
propagate. The MPL4 router periodically executes an algorithm that
determines the presence of MPL Interfaces on the links connected to
its interfaces. When no MPL Interfaces are present on a given link,
the corresponding MPL Interface is signaled as not being part of the
MPL4 zone.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
3.1. MPL Interface Parameters
One parameter is associated with every MPL Interface in the MPL4
router, and two parameters are associated with the behavior of the
MPL4 router as a whole.
o MPL_BLOCKED: Boolean value that indicates whether or not the
associated interface belongs to the MPL4 zone.
o MPL_CHECK_INT: Integer that indicates the time interval between
successive activations of the MPL4 router algorithm, in seconds.
o MPL_TO: Integer that indicates the interval in which MPL messages
are expected to be received, in seconds.
3.2. Determination of MPL4 Zone
All interfaces of the MPL4 router MUST be associated with the
following MPL protocol parameters, as described in [RFC7731]:
PROACTIVE_FORWARDING, DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX,
DATA_MESSAGE_K, and DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS. Upon startup of
the MPL4 router, the parameters associated with all interfaces are
assigned the following values: PROACTIVE_FORWARDING = TRUE,
MPL_BLOCKED = false. All interfaces MUST subscribe to the multicast
addresses ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS scope 3 and scope 4.
The MPL4 router executes the following algorithm for each interface:
o With a frequency determined by the value of MPL_CHECK_INT, the
MPL4 router sends an MPL4 message on each interface with a header
that includes the MPL Option [RFC7731]; the message is sent to
multicast address ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS with scope 4.
o When, within an interval determined by the value of MPL_TO no MPL
message is received, the value of MPL_BLOCKED is set to TRUE.
o On reception of an MPL4 message, the value of MPL_BLOCKED of the
receiving interface is set to false.
This protocol leads to a state where for each interface MPL_BLOCKED
is set to false if and only if MPL-enabled interfaces are connected
to the link associated with the interface. When an MPL message is
submitted to an MPL-enabled interface called "Interface A" in the MPL
router, the Trickle algorithm [RFC6206] is activated to send the MPL
message. The MPL4 message with multicast address ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS
scope 4 is accepted by every interface connected to the link that has
subscribed to ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS with scope 4. On acceptance of the
MPL4 message by an interface called "Interface B", the MPL4 message
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
is returned with Trickle over Interface B. Consequently, the MPL4
message is received by the originating Interface A, after which
MPL_BLOCKED is set to false.
When a new node is connected to the link, it can immediately send an
MPL4 message, or it can wait for the reception of an MPL4 message to
announce its intention to be part of the MPL4 zone.
4. Admin-Local Policy
This section begins by specifying what types of multicast messages
arriving at an interface are legal. It continues with a description
of forwarding legal Admin-Local multicast messages over other MPL
Interfaces.
The policy for forwarding Admin-Local multicast messages
automatically to an MPL Interface is specified as a function of the
state of the MPL Interface and the multicast message. The state of
the multicast message is determined by the presence of the MPL Option
[RFC7731] and the destination multicast address. The state of the
MPL Interface is determined by the subscribed multicast addresses,
the zone index [RFC4007], and the values of the PROACTIVE_FORWARDING
parameter and the MPL_BLOCKED parameter of the MPL Interface.
When the zone is undefined or not enabled, all interfaces have the
same zone index.
4.1. Legal Multicast Messages
Multicast messages can be created within the node by an application
or can arrive at an interface.
A multicast message created at a source (MPL Seed) is legal when it
conforms to the properties described in Section 9.1 of [RFC7731].
A multicast message received at a given interface is legal when:
o The message carries an MPL Option (MPL message) and the incoming
MPL Interface is subscribed to the destination multicast address.
o The message does not carry an MPL Option and the interface has
expressed interest in receiving messages with the specified
multicast address via Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810]
or IGMP [RFC3376]. The message was forwarded according to
Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM) [RFC3973] or
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC4601].
Illegal multicast messages are discarded.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
4.2. Forwarding Legal Packets
A legal multicast message received at a given interface is assigned
the network identifier of the interface of the incoming link. A
message that is created within the node is assigned the network
identifier "any".
Two types of legal multicast messages are considered in Section 4.1:
(1) MPL messages and (2) multicast messages that do not carry the MPL
Option.
4.2.1. MPL Message
MPL messages are forwarded on MPL Interfaces using the Trickle
parameter values assigned to the MPL Interface according to the
following rules:
o Link-Local (scope 2) MPL messages are not forwarded.
o Realm-Local (scope 3) MPL messages are forwarded on all MPL
Interfaces where all of the following are true:
* The multicast address to which the MPL Interface subscribes is
the same as the multicast address of the MPL message.
* The zone index of the MPL Interface is the same as the zone
index of the MPL Interface on which the MPL message was
received.
* The MPL Interface has PROACTIVE_FORWARDING set to TRUE.
* The assigned network identifier of the MPL message is "any", or
the assigned network identifier of the MPL message is equal to
the network identifier of the MPL Interface.
o Admin-Local (scope 4) MPL messages are forwarded on all MPL
Interfaces that are subscribed to the same multicast address, have
the same zone index, have PROACTIVE_FORWARDING set to TRUE, and
have MPL_BLOCKED set to false.
o MPL messages that encapsulate a message with a multicast scope of
5 or higher are decapsulated and forwarded over the interface when
the interface is subscribed to the multicast address of the
decapsulated message.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
4.2.2. Multicast Messages without MPL Option
Multicast messages without the MPL Option are forwarded on MPL
Interfaces according to the following rules:
o Link-Local (scope 2), Realm-Local (scope 3), and Admin-Local
(scope 4) multicast messages are not forwarded.
o Multicast messages with a multicast scope of 5 or higher are
encapsulated in an MPL message with destination address
ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS with scope 4. The resulting message is then
treated as described in Section 4.2.1.
4.3. Encryption Rules
An incoming message protected at Layer 2 MUST be subsequently
re-protected at Layer 2 at all outgoing interfaces. Incoming
messages are integrity checked and optionally decrypted at the
incoming interface at Layer 2 using the keys and protection algorithm
appropriate to the incoming interface's network and are re-protected
at the outgoing interface using the keys and protection algorithm
appropriate to the outgoing interface's network. It may be necessary
to assess the relative levels of protection on the respective
interfaces and apply policy rules -- for example, to avoid
downgrading security where one network has a lower level of security
than another.
An incoming MPL4 message that is not protected at Layer 2 MUST NOT be
re-protected at Layer 2 at all outgoing interfaces.
5. MPL Domains and Zones
An MPL Domain is a scope zone in which MPL Interfaces subscribe to
the same MPL Domain Address [RFC7731]. In accordance with [RFC4007],
a zone boundary passes through a node. For example, a small
Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN) node usually has one MPL mesh
interface that is subscribed to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast
address with a scope value of 3 (Realm-Local) [RFC7346]. The node
interface belongs to the zone, and the corresponding zone boundary
does not pass through this node. In the border router with MPL
Interfaces subscribed to the multicast address ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS
with scope value 3, the zone usually includes this single interface
and excludes all other interfaces. A notable exception is provided
by a node where MPL Interfaces of the same technology share the same
network identifier. These interfaces belong to the same MPL4 zone
when the interfaces share the same zone index.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
In an MPL4 router, every MPL Interface subscribes to the Admin-Local
ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS multicast address in addition to the Realm-Local
ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS address.
Every interface that belongs to an MPL Domain that extends over
border routers MUST be subscribed to the Admin-Local
ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS address.
The MPL4 zone corresponding with the MPL multicast address
ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS with scope 4 (Admin-Local) applies to border
routers with multiple interfaces, of which at least one interface is
MPL enabled and is subscribed to multicast address ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS
with scope 4. In a border router, all MPL-enabled interfaces that
subscribe to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS address with scope 4 and for
which MPL_BLOCKED is false belong to the same MPL4 zone when the
interfaces share the same zone index.
MPL4 messages remain bounded within a zone as defined in [RFC4007].
Consequently, MPL4 messages cannot be routed between interfaces
belonging to different zones. When the concept of zone is unknown or
disabled in a router, all interfaces belong to the same zone. For
example, consider a router with five interfaces, where Interfaces A
and B belong to zone 1 and Interfaces C, D, and E belong to zone 2.
MPL4 messages can be routed freely between Interfaces A and B, and
freely between Interfaces C, D, and E. However, an MPL4 message
MUST NOT be routed from Interface A to Interface D.
6. Default Parameter Values
Three parameters are created by this document. Their values are
related to the Trickle timer intervals.
o MPL_TO = DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX times 2, which leaves enough time to
receive the second response message.
o MPL_CHECK_INT = 5 minutes, which means that a reaction to a
network malfunction happens within 5 minutes.
o MPL_BLOCKED = TRUE, which means that the interface has not
received MPL-enabled messages to include the interface in the
MPL4 zone.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC7731] also apply to MPL4 routers.
The sending of MPL4 messages by a malicious node can have unwanted
consequences, as explained by the following example. It is not
unusual for a wired (e.g., Ethernet) link to be used between two
floors or sections of an LLN, as radio propagation through reinforced
concrete is generally poor. The MPL4 zone can thus envelop multiple
routers, meshes, and links. It is possible that a malicious node
could connect to a wired link on which no MPL-enabled nodes are
foreseen. In this example configuration, the malicious node can send
MPL4 messages to the MPL4 router interfaces. When nothing is done,
the MPL4 routers will consequently distribute MPL4 messages from one
mesh over the wired link to the next mesh, although the wired link
was not expected to transport MPL4 messages.
To understand the consequences of this unwanted behavior, the
following cases should be distinguished:
o The source mesh uses Layer 2 encryption.
o The MPL4 router can be managed.
The four possible combinations are discussed below:
Layer 2 unsecured, router unmanaged: In this case, MPL4 messages are
freely distributed over meshes and links that are interconnected
by MPL4 routers within a zone. The MPL-enabled (malicious) nodes
can read all MPL4 messages and distribute MPL4 messages over a
network limited by a zone. This situation can be acceptable for
an isolated network within a clearly defined space, where the
connection of nodes can be tightly controlled. A completely wired
LLN, e.g., such as is seen in BACnet (a protocol for building
automation and control networks) [BACnet] is an example of an
unencrypted LLN that would be considered physically secure.
Layer 2 secured, router unmanaged: In this case, MPL4 messages are
freely distributed over meshes and links that are interconnected
by MPL4 routers within a zone. Following the rules of
Section 4.3, the MPL4-enabled (malicious) nodes cannot read the
MPL4 messages, and MPL4 messages sent by the malicious node are
not accepted by other nodes. This situation is acceptable for a
home network or managed network extending over precisely one zone,
occupying a clearly defined physical space, where ease of
installation is important. In such a network, the presence of the
malicious node is not different from any other malicious node that
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
tries to send messages over Layer 2 protected links. Because the
network occupies exactly one zone, the MPL4 message distribution
cannot be extended outside the network.
Layer 2 unsecured, router managed: In this case, the distribution of
MPL4 messages over MPL4 router interfaces can be limited to those
interfaces for which a manager has enabled MPL, as well as a set
of multicast addresses. The malicious node cannot extend the
distribution of MPL4 messages over unwanted interfaces. It is
important that the handling of the interfaces by the manager is
protected. However, MPL4 messages sent over the mesh can be
interpreted by malicious nodes, and malicious messages can be
injected into the set of meshes and links that are connected by
the MPL4 routers for which the manager enabled the interfaces.
This situation can be practical for interconnected links and
meshes that are connected to a LAN over a limited period -- for
example, during installation of the interconnected meshes and
links.
Layer 2 secured, router managed: In this case, the distribution of
MPL4 messages over MPL4 router interfaces can be limited to those
interfaces for which a manager has enabled MPL, as well as a set
of multicast addresses. Following the rules of Section 4.3, the
malicious node cannot extend the distribution of MPL4 messages
over unwanted interfaces, and MPL4 messages sent by the malicious
node are not accepted by other nodes. It is important that the
handling of the interfaces by the manager is protected. The
MPL-enabled (malicious) nodes cannot read the MPL4 messages, and
MPL4 messages sent by the malicious node are not accepted by other
nodes. Depending on the number of managed interfaces, the network
can progressively pass from autoconfigured to fully
administratively controlled.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed., and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4007, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4007>.
[RFC5416] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
Ed., "Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11", RFC 5416,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5416, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5416>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[RFC7346] Droms, R., "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes", RFC 7346,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7346, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7346>.
[RFC7731] Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low-Power
and Lossy Networks (MPL)", RFC 7731, DOI 10.17487/RFC7731,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7731>.
[IEEE802.15.4]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Networks (LR-WPANs)", IEEE 802.15.4,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2011.6012487,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=6012485>.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
[IEEE802.11]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
IEEE 802.11-2012, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2012.6178212,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=6178209>.
[G.9959] International Telecommunication Union, "Short range
narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers - PHY,
MAC, SAR and LLC layer specifications", ITU-T
Recommendation G.9959, January 2015,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9959>.
[BTLE] Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Core
Specification Version 4.1", December 2013,
<https://www.bluetooth.org/en-us/specification/
adopted-specifications>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, DOI 10.17487/RFC3973,
January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3973>.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.
[RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>.
[RFC7428] Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", RFC 7428,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7428, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7428>.
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7732 MPL Admin-Local Policy February 2016
[RFC7668] Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7668>.
[BACnet] "BACnet Webpage", <http://www.bacnet.org>.
Acknowledgements
This document reflects discussions and remarks from several
individuals, including (in alphabetical order) Scott Bradner, Esko
Dijk, Adrian Farrel, Matthew Gillmore, Joel Halpern, Steve Hanna,
Michael Richardson, and Pascal Thubert.
Authors' Addresses
Peter van der Stok
Consultant
Email: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Robert Cragie
ARM Ltd.
110 Fulbourn Road
Cambridge CB1 9NJ
United Kingdom
Email: robert.cragie@arm.com
van der Stok & Cragie Informational [Page 15]