-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
roll-useofrplinfo-15.txt
2408 lines (1624 loc) · 100 KB
/
roll-useofrplinfo-15.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
Updates: 6553 (if approved) M. Richardson
Intended status: Standards Track SSW
Expires: December 7, 2017 P. Thubert
Cisco
June 5, 2017
When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-15
Abstract
This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document
enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which
to design efficient compression of these headers.
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 December 7, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Update to RFC6553 and RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Update RFC 6553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Update RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . . . 13
6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . 14
6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . 15
6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . 15
6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . 16
6.2. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . . . 17
6.2.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . 17
6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . 18
6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.4. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Leaf . . . . . 20
6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-
aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-
RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 26
7.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 26
7.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 27
7.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 28
7.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 29
7.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 29
7.8. Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 30
7.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 31
7.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 32
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
7.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 33
7.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Observations about the cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2. Non-Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction
RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
[RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553
[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6
Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the
routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route
Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a
RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode.
These various items are referred to as RPL artifacts, and they are
seen on all of the data-plane traffic that occurs in RPL routed
networks; they do not in general appear on the RPL control plane
traffic at all which is mostly hop-by-hop traffic (one exception
being DAO messages in non-storing mode).
It has become clear from attempts to do multi-vendor
interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above
artifacts as possible that not all implementors agree when artifacts
are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed.
An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover
if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that
discussion. This document clarify what is correct and incorrect
behaviour.
The related document A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH)
[I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] defines a method to compress RPL
Option information and Routing Header type 3 [RFC6554], an efficient
IP-in-IP technique, and use cases proposed for the
[Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH.
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
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] applies to this document: LBR, LLN,
RPL, RPL Domain and ROLL.
RPL-node: It is device which implements RPL, thus we can say that the
device is RPL-capable or RPL-aware. Please note that the device can
be found inside the LLN or outside LLN. In this document a RPL-node
which is a leaf of a DODAG is called RPL-aware-leaf.
RPL-not-capable: It is device which do not implement RPL, thus we can
say that the device is not-RPL-aware. Please note that the device
can be found inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-node which
is a leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf.
pledge: a new device which seeks admission to a network. (from
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra])
Join Registrar and Coordinator (JRC): a device which brings new nodes
(pledges) into a network. (from
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra])
Flag day: A "flag day" is a procedure in which the network, or a part
of it, is changed during a planned outage, or suddenly, causing an
outage while the network recovers [RFC4192]
2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers
The term "hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6" header refers to: adding a header
that originates from a node to an adjacent node, using the addresses
(usually the GUA or ULA, but could use the link-local addresses) of
each node. If the packet must traverse multiple hops, then it must
be decapsulated at each hop, and then re-encapsulated again in a
similar fashion.
3. Update to RFC6553 and RFC 6550
3.1. Update RFC 6553
[RFC6553] states that in the Option Type field of the RPL Option
header, the two high order bits MUST be set to '01' and the third bit
is equal to '1'. The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST
discard the packet if it doesn't recognize the option type, and the
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
third bit indicates that the Option Data may change en route. The
remaining bits serve as the option type.
On the other hand, due to changes to [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis], it
states: "it is now expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path
only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly
configured to do so", it means that the nodes that do not undersand a
Hop-by-Hop Option on a received packet MUST ignore the packet (do not
process it).
Thus, if an IPv6 node (RPL-not-capable) get a packet with an RPL
Option, it should ignore the HBH option. To reflect this behaviour
into the RPL Option, we update the Option Type field to: the two high
order bits MUST be set to '00' and the third bit is equal to '1'.
So, these two high order bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST skip
over this option and continue processing the header if it doesn't
recognize the option type, and the third bit indicates that the
Option Data may change en route. The remaining bits serve as the
option type. In that sense the related document updates [RFC6553].
In general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or
leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, when it has the
[RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as the RPI or [RFC6554] SRH3
Extension Header (S)RH3. Because of [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] the
RPI Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in place even if the end host does
not understand it.
Having the RPL Option field to '00' may cause a "flag day" since all
nodes on the LLN need to be upgraded at the same time. The flag day
can handle with 6LoRH techniques (RPI-6LoRH).
3.2. Update RFC 6550
To handle a flag day, we propose to indicate this behaviour trough a
DIO Option, or through a DIO flag (to be decided by the working
group)
DIO Option: 0x05 RPI flag day
Through, DIO Option flag. RFC 6550 states: ""
Flags: 8-bit unused field reserved for flags. The field MUST be
initialized to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
We propose to use a bit flag as follows:
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | FR |
| | | | | | | | |
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Figure 1: A DIO Flag to indicate the RPI-flag-day.
FR(RPI-flag-day): the flag with values of 1 indicates that RPL Option
field is set to "00", values of 0 indicates that RPL Option field is
set to "01"
4. 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 structureWe propose to use a bit flag
as follows: (Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph).
RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6
[RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information
Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination
Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with
different Code values. A RPL Stack is showed in Figure 1.
RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM),
it is fully stateful or an in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully
source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non-
storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non-
storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the
time of writing this document.
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
+--------------+
| Upper Layers |
| |
+--------------+
| RPL |
| |
+--------------+
| ICMPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN |
| |
+--------------+
| PHY-MAC |
| |
+--------------+
Figure 2: RPL Stack.
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
+----+--+
| DODAG | node:01
+---------+ Root +----------+
| | 6LBR | |
| +----+--+ |
| | |
| | |
... ... ...
| | |
+-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+
|6LR | | | | |
+-----+ | | | | |
| | 11 | | 12 | | 13 +------+
| +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
+-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+
|Leaf | | | | | |Leaf| |Leaf |
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
| 6LN | | | | | | 6LN| | 6LN |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+
PROPOSED DIAGRAM (Based on the graph presented at IETF )
+------------+
| INTERNET ----------+
| | |
+------------+ |
|
|
|
A |
+-------+
|6LBR |
+-----------|(root) |-------+
| +-------+ |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| B |C
+---|---+ +---|---+
| 6LR | | 6LR |
+-------->| |--+ +--- ---+
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| D | E | |
+-|-----+ +---|---+ | |
| 6LR | | 6LR | | |
| | +------ | | |
+---|---+ | +---|---+ | |
| | | | |
| | +--+ | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | I | J |
F | | G | H | |
+-----+-+ +-|-----+ +---|--+ +---|---+ +---|---+
| Raf | | ~Raf | | Raf | | Raf | | ~Raf |
| | | | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +-------+ +-------+
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
Figure 3: A reference RPL Topology.
Figure 2 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The
numbers in or above the nodes are there so that they may be
referenced in subsequent sections. In the figure, a 6LN can be a
router or a host. The 6LN leafs marked as (21) is a RPL host that
does not have forwarding capability and (25) is a RPL router. The
leaf marked 6LN (24) is a device which does not speak RPL at all
(not-RPL-aware), but uses Router-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and
efficient-ND only to participate in the network [RFC6775]. In the
document this leaf (24) is often named IPv6 node. The 6LBR in the
figure is the root of the Global DODAG.
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.
5. 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.
This version of the document assumes the changes in
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are passed (at the time to write this
specification, the draft is on version 05).
The uses cases describe the communication between RPL-aware-nodes,
with the root (6LBR), and with Internet. This document also describe
the communication between nodes acting as leaf that does not
understand RPL and they are part of hte LLN. We name these nodes as
not-RPL-aware-leaf.(e.g. section 5.4- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root) We describe also how is the communication inside of the LLN
when it has the final destination addressed outside of the LLN e.g.
with destination to Internet. (e.g. section 5.7- Flow from not-RPL-
aware-leaf to Internet)
The uses cases comprise as follow:
Interaction between Leaf and Root:
RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
Interaction between Leaf and Internet:
RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
Interaction between Leafs:
RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
This document assumes the rule that a Header cannot be inserted or
removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This
is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in
[RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except by the
sender or the receiver.
But, options in the Hop-by-Hop option which are marked with option
type 01 ([RFC2460] section 4.2 and [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]) SHOULD
be ignored when received by a host or router which does not
understand that option.
This means that in general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of
an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, when it
has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as the RPI or [RFC6554]
SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3.
The recent change to the second of these rules means that the RPI
Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in place even if the end host does not
understand it.
NOTE: There is some possible security risk when the RPI information
is released to the Internet. At this point this is a theoretical
situation. It is clear that the RPI option would waste some network
bandwidth when it escapes.
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
An intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or
RPI Option) must encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP
header. The new header can be placed is placed after this new outer
IP header.
A corollory is that an SHR3 or RPI Option can only be removed by an
intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header,
which is addressed to the intermediate router. When it does so, the
whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may be
added). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being
addressed to the next hop router using link-local addresses.
Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by
routers on the path of the packet without the need to add to remove
an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this
modification in mind, and both the RPL RH and the RPL option are
marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsec AH security header can be
applied across these headers, but it can not secure the values which
mutate.
RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one
exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the
root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written,
so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about
which forwarding table to use (as the root has already made all
routing decisions). There still may be cases (such as in 6tisch)
where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to
pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop.
In the tables present in this document, the term "RPL aware leaf" is
has been shortened to "Raf", and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been
shortened to "~Raf" to make the table fit in available space.
The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process
is clear, while later examples are more concise.
6. Storing mode
In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender cannot determine whether
the destination is RPL-capable and thus would need an IP-in-IP
header. The IP-in-IP header needs to be addressed on a hop-by-hop
basis so that the last 6LR can remove the RPI header. Additionally,
The sender can determine if the destination is inside the LLN by
looking if the destination address is matched by the DIO's PIO
option.
The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the
following scenarios, and indicates when the IP-in-IP header must be
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
inserted on a hop-by-hop basis, and when it can target the
destination node directly. There are these possible situations: hop-
by-hop necessary (indicated by "hop"), or destination address
possible (indicated by "dst"). In all cases hop by hop can be used.
In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the column is left
blank.
In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies
inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the
RH3 is not need because we do not indicate the route in stroing mode.
The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN
(Figure 2).
+----------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+
| Interaction between | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst |
+----------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+
| Leaf - Root | Raf to root | No | -- |
| -- | root to Raf | No | -- |
| -- | root to ~Raf | No | -- |
| -- | ~Raf to root | Yes | root |
| Leaf - Internet | Raf to Int | No | -- |
| -- | Int to Raf | Yes | raf |
| -- | ~Raf to Int | root | raf |
| -- | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root |
| -- | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
| Leaf - Leaf | Raf to Raf | No | -- |
| -- | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- |
| -- | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst |
| -- | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
+----------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+
Table 1: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode
Optional format for the table
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| Interaction between | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst |
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| | Raf to root | No | -- |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | No | -- |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | root to ~Raf | No | -- |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | ~Raf to root | Yes | root |
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| | Raf to Int | No | -- |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf | Yes | raf |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
| | Raf to Raf | No | -- |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- |
+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst |
+ +--------------+----------+--------------+
| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
+---------------------+--------------+----------+--------------+
Figure 4: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode.
6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in
storing mode (SM) between,
RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information
instanceID and rank information.
As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does
not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages
from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf
node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may
issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS
messages.
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR).
As it was mentioned In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full-
fledge RPL routers.
The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR which
decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up. When the packet
arrives at 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed.
No IP-in-IP header is required.
The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is
addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating
with the 6LBR to make use of this scenario. The 6LN can know the
address of the 6LBR because it knows the address of the root via the
DODAGID in the DIO messages.
+-------------------+-----+-------+------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 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
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN).
In this case the 6LBR inserts RPI header and sends 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.
No IP-in-IP header is required.
+-------------------+------+-------+------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 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
6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6).
As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this
situation is identical to the previous scenario.
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
+-------------------+------+-------+----------------+
| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 |
+-------------------+------+-------+----------------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI (Ignored) |
+-------------------+------+-------+----------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware-
leaf
6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For
example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the
IPv6 node.
When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR_1, the 6LR_1 will
insert a RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The
IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be addressed to the next hop, or to the root.
The root removes the header and processes the packet.
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR |
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
+------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
root
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
6.2. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet
In this section we are going to describe the communication flow in
storing mode (SM) between,
RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
6.2.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be
ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware.
In this case the flow comprises:
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR.
No IP-in-IP header is required.
Note: In this use case we use a node as leaf, but this use case can
be also applicable to any RPL-node type (e.g. 6LR)
+-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
| Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
| Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- |
| Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- |
| Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI | RPI (Ignored) |
+-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to
Internet
Robles, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Useof6553 June 2017
6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
In this case the flow comprises:
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN).
When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added
in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the
rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is
removed and the packet processed.
+----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN |
| | t | | | |
+----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
| Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- |
| headers | | IP(RPI) | | |
| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) |
| headers | | | | |
| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- |
| headers | | | | |
| Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| d | | | | |
| headers | | | | |
+----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+
Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware-
leaf
6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
In this case the flow comprises:
not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) -->
Internet
6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the