-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
roll-useofrplinfo-02.txt
1736 lines (1059 loc) · 65.3 KB
/
roll-useofrplinfo-02.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
ROLL Working Group M. Robles
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational M. Richardson
Expires: October 5, 2016 SSW
P. Thubert
Cisco
April 3, 2016
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-02
Abstract
This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and
IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help
defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN
environments.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 5, 2016.
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
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 10
5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 10
5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 11
5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 11
5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 12
5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 13
5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 14
5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 15
5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 17
5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 20
6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 21
6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 21
6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22
6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 23
6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 24
6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 25
6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 26
6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 27
6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC
6553 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop-
by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing
topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route Header",
an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing
domain.
Several discussions in the ROLL/6lo/6TiSCH Mailing Lists took place
focusing in the definition of how to compress RPL Information in
constrained environment. ROLL Virtual Interim Meeting (02-2015)
concluded that there is a need to define how to use [RFC6553],
[RFC6554] and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to be able to set the
correct environment for compression A Routing Header Dispatch for
6LoWPAN (6LoRH) [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] defines a method to
compress RPL Option information and Routing Header type 3 (RFC6554)
and an efficient IP-in-IP technique. Uses cases proposed for the
[Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH: When the packet travel inside
the RPL domain, the IP in IP 6LoRH is not be presented in the packet
and when the packet travel outside a RPL domain, Ip in IP 6LoRH is
present in the packet.
This document is going to be focused in data plane messages and how
can be transmitted within the above mentioned RFCs.
2. Terminology and Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Terminology defined in [RFC7102]
3. Sample/reference topology
A RPL network is composed of a 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), Backbone
Router (6BBR), 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf
logically organized in a DODAG structure (Destination Oriented
Directed Acyclic Graph).
RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane ), a new ICMPv6
message with Type 155. DIS, DIO and DAO messages are all RPL Control
messages but with different Code values.
RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode, it is
fully stateful or an in non-storing, it is fully source routed. A
RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non-storing, i.e. a RPL
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
Instance with a combination of storing and non-storing nodes is not
supported with the current specifications.
+--------------+
| Upper Layers |
| |
+--------------+
| RPL |
| |
+--------------+
| ICMPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN |
| |
+--------------+
| PHY-MAC |
| |
+--------------+
Figure 1: RPL Stack.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
+----+--+
|DODAG |
+---------+Root +----------+
| |6LBR | |
| +----+--+ |
| | |
| | |
... ... ...
| | |
+-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+
|6LR | | | | |
+-----+ | | | | |
| | | | | | +------+
| +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+
|Leaf | | | | | | | | |
|6LN | | | | | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+
Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology.
This document is in part motivated by the work that is ongoing at the
6TiSCH working group. The 6TiSCH architecture
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] draft explains the network
architecture of a 6TiSCH network. This architecture is used for the
remainder of this document.
The scope of the 6TiSCH Architecture is a Backbone Link that
federates multiple LLNs (mesh) as a single IPv6 Multi-Link Subnet.
Each LLN in the subnet is anchored at a Backbone Router (6BBR). The
Backbone Routers interconnect the LLNs over the Backbone Link and
emulate that the LLN nodes are present on the Backbone thus creating
a so-called: Multi-Link Subnet. An LLN node can move freely from an
LLN anchored at a Backbone Router to another LLN anchored at the same
or a different Backbone Router inside the Multi-Link Subnet and
conserve its addresses.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
|
+-----+
| | Border Router to the RPL domain
| | (may be a RPL virtual root)
+-----+
|
| Backbone
+-------------------+-------------------+
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone
| | router | | router | | router
+|---|+ +-|||-+ +-[_]-+
| | PCI-exp / | \ USB | Ethernet
( ) ( ) ( )( )( ) (6LBR == RPL DODAG root)
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o 6LR == RPL router) o o
o o o o o o o z
o o o o o o (6LoWPAN Host)
<----------------------- RPL Instance ------------------------>
Figure 3: RPL domain architecture
4. Use cases
In data plane context a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in-
IPv6 encapsulation is going to be analyzed for the following traffic
flows:
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
-Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
-Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
-Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
-Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
This document assumes a rule that a Header cannot be inserted or
removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed.
- This means that an intermediate router that needs to add a header
must encapsulate the packet in an outer IP header where the new
header can be placed.
- This also means that a Header can only be removed by an
intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header,
and in that case, the whole encapsulating header must be removed - a
replacement may be added.
This document recognizes that some headers such as a Routing Header
or a Hop-by-Hop header may be modified by routers on the path of the
packet without the need to add to remove an encapsulating header.
The RPL RH and the RPL option are mutable but recoverable .
RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is an
exception in non-storing mode, when a packet is going down from the
route: the entire route is written, so there are no loops of
confusion about which table to use (purpose of instanceID).
The applicability for storing (RPL-SN) and non-Storing (RPL-NSN)
modes for the previous cases is showed as follows:
+---------------+------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------+
| Use Case | RPL- | RPL- | RPL-SN | RPL- | RPL- | RPL-NSN |
| | SN | SN | IP-in- | NSN | NSN | IP-in- |
| | RPI | RH3 | IP | RPI | RH3 | IP |
| | (RFC | (RFC | | | | |
| | 6553 | 6554 | | | | |
| | ) | ) | | | | |
+---------------+------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------+
| RPL-aware- | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| leaf to root | | | | | | |
| root to RPL- | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| aware-leaf | | | | | | |
| not-RPL- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| aware-leaf to | | | | | | |
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
| root | | | | | | |
| root to not- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| RPL-aware- | | | | | | |
| leaf | | | | | | |
| RPL-aware- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| leaf to | | | | | | |
| Internet | | | | | | |
| Internet to | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| RPL-aware- | | | | | | |
| leaf | | | | | | |
| not-RPL- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| aware-leaf to | | | | | | |
| Internet | | | | | | |
| Internet to | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| not-RPL- | | | | | | |
| aware-leaf | | | | | | |
| RPL-aware- | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| leaf to RPL- | | | | | | |
| aware-leaf | | | | | | |
| RPL-aware- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| leaf to not- | | | | | | |
| RPL-aware- | | | | | | |
| leaf | | | | | | |
| not-RPL- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| aware-leaf to | | | | | | |
| RPL-aware- | | | | | | |
| leaf | | | | | | |
| not-RPL- | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| aware-leaf to | | | | | | |
| not-RPL- | | | | | | |
| aware-leaf | | | | | | |
+---------------+------+------+---------+--------+--------+---------+
Table 1: Posibility to transmit in Storing or Non-Storing mode: RPI,
RH3, IP-in-IP encapsulation
5. Storing mode
5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
As states in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does
not generally issue DIO messages, a leaf node accepts DIO messages
(In inconsistency a leaf node generates DIO with infinite rank, to
fix it). It may issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally
ignores DAO and DIS messages.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
In storing mode is suitable the use of RFC 6553 to send RPL
Information through HBH field checking the routing table to find out
where to send the message.
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> 6LR,... --> root (6LBR) Note: In
this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full-fledge RPL routers
The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and send the packet to 6LR which
decrement the rank in RPI and send the packet up. When the packet
arrives to 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed.
+-------------------+-----+------+------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR |
+-------------------+-----+------+------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+-----+------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root
5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
In this case the 6LBR insert RPI header and send the packet down, the
6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID for
multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed.
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
It includes IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to transmit information not
related with the RPL domain. In the 6LBR the RPI header is inserted
into an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the last 6LR, which removes
the header before pass the packet to the IPv6 node.
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
| Inserted headers | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware-
leaf
5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR)
When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR. This router insert
the RPI encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root.
The root removes the header and process the packet
+-------------------+------+--------------------+-------------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR | 6LBR |
+-------------------+------+--------------------+-------------------+
| Inserted headers | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- |
+-------------------+------+--------------------+-------------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
RPL information from RFC 6553 should not go out to Internet. The
router should take this information out before send the packet to
Internet. The HBH Option is going to be analyzed in each node to the
root.
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
6LN insert RPI in a IPv6-in-IPv6 in a outer header, and send the
packet to 6LR, which modified the rank in the RPI. When the packet
arrives to 6LBR, the RPI is removed.
+----------+-------------------+-----+-------------------+----------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LBR | Internet |
+----------+-------------------+-----+-------------------+----------+
| Inserted | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | RPI | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+-------------------+-----+-------------------+----------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added
in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and send to 6LR, which modifies the
rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives 6LN the RPI header is
removed and the packet processed.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+----------+----------+-------------------+-----+-------------------+
| Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR | 6LN |
+----------+----------+-------------------+-----+-------------------+
| Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | RPI | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+----------+-------------------+-----+-------------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware-
leaf
5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) = IPv6 node --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) -->
Internet
In the IPv6 node the flow label is assumed to be zero, the packet is
transmited to 6LR which encapsule the RPI header in an outer IPv6-in-
IPv6 header and send to 6LBR, which removes this header and send the
packet to Internet and might set the flow label field.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+----------+-----+-------------------+-------------------+----------+
| Header | IPv | 6LR | 6LBR | Internet |
| | 6 | | | |
+----------+-----+-------------------+-------------------+----------+
| Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+-----+-------------------+-------------------+----------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
6LBR get the packet from Internet and add a RPI header encapsulated
in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to 6LR and send the packet down.
The flow label is set to zero on inner IP. The last 6LR removes the
RPI header. The IPv6 node might set the flow label since may arrive
with zero value. The RPI should be in IP-in-IP header.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
| | t | | | |
+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
| Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL-
aware-leaf
5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop P2P optimization for both
storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a P2P packet
destined to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in
[RFC6550].
In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent,
the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the
rank).
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+-------------+-------+---------------+---------------+-----+-------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR | 6LR (common | 6LR | 6LN |
| | src | | parent) | | dst |
+-------------+-------+---------------+---------------+-----+-------+
| Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI |
| headers | | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
| Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | -- | -- |
| headers | | (decreasing | (increasing | | |
| | | rank) | rank) | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | | |
+-------------+-------+---------------+---------------+-----+-------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf
5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN
Somehow, the sender has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware,
and needs to know 6LR, and not even the root knows where the 6LR is
(in storing mode).
This case FAILS.
Possible solutions, which are not mutually exclusive:
1 - An IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be used on a hop-by-hop basis, using
either link-local addresses, or even IPv6 Global Unicast Addresses,
but each IPv6-in-IPv6 header needs to be added/removed at each hop.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
,---.
/ \
( 6LR2 ) IP3,RPI,IP,ULP
,-" .
,-" `---' `.
,' `.
,---. ,-" `,---.
/ +" / \
( 6LR1 ) Remove the IP3,RPI( 6LR3 )
\ / \ /
/---' `---'|
/ IP2,RPI,IP,ULP \
/ |
/ \
,---+-. |
/ \ +--+----+
( 6LN ) | |
\ / | IPv6 | IP,ULP
`-----' | |
IP1,RPI,IP,ULP +-------+
Figure 4: Solution IPv6-in-IPv6 in each hop
2- If the definition of the Option Type field of RPL Option '01' were
changed so that it isn't a "discard if not recognized". This change
is an incompatible on-the-wire change. However, this change could
perhaps be done with the updated 6LoRH compression work, as that is
also an incompatible on-the-wire change for which we presently have
no way to signal.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+
| Heade | 6LN | 6LR | 6LR (common | 6LR | IPv |
| r | | | parent) | | 6 |
+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+
| Inser | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ted h | IPv6(RPI) | | | | |
| eader | | | | | |
| s | | | | | |
| Remov | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- |
| ed he | | | | IPv6(RPI) | |
| aders | | | | | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| added | | | | | |
| heade | | | | | |
| rs | | | | | |
| Modif | -- | IPv6-in- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- |
| ied h | | IPv6(RPI) | IPv6(RPI) | | |
| eader | | | | | |
| s | | | | | |
| Untou | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ched | | | | | |
| heade | | | | | |
| rs | | | | | |
+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to not-
RPL-aware-leaf
5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
The 6LR that get the packet from IPv6 node, insert the RPI header
encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header with destination to 6LN, the
common parent change the direction of RPI and finally it is removed
by 6LN.
Robles, et al. Expires October 5, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 April 2016
+-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Heade | IP | 6LR | common | 6LR | 6LN |
| r | v6 | | parent | | |
| | | | (6LR) | | |
+-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Inser | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- |
| ted h | | IPv6(RPI) | | | |
| eader | | | | | |
| s | | | | | |
| Remov | -- | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- |
| ed he | | | | | IPv6(RPI) |
| aders | | | | | |
| Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| added | | | | | |
| heade | | | | | |
| rs | | | | | |
| Modif | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | IPv6-in- | -- |
| ied h | | | IPv6(RPI) | IPv6(RPI) | |
| eader | | | | | |
| s | | | | | |
| Untou | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ched | | | | | |
| heade | | | | | |
| rs | | | | | |
+-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
RPL-aware-leaf
5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)--> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-
RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)
The problem to solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when
get into LLN. One approach is that the 6LBR should know in which 6LR
the IPv6 node is attached. The RPI information is encapsulated in a
IPv6-in-IPv6 header, each IPv6-in-IPv6 header needs to be added/
removed at each hop..