| < draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-06.txt | draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-07.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. | ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft L. Zhao | Internet-Draft L. Zhao | |||
| Updates: 6550, 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems | Updates: 6550, 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track 15 April 2020 | Intended status: Standards Track 17 April 2020 | |||
| Expires: 17 October 2020 | Expires: 19 October 2020 | |||
| A RPL Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header | A RPL Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header | |||
| draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-06 | draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-07 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document complements RFC 8138 and dedicates a bit in the RPL | This document updates RFC 8138 and RFC 6550 by defining a bit in the | |||
| configuration option defined in RFC 6550 to indicate whether RFC 8138 | RPL configuration option to indicate whether RFC 8138 compression is | |||
| compression is used within the RPL Instance. | used within the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior of RFC | |||
| 8138-capable nodes when the bit is set and reset. | ||||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 October 2020. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 October 2020. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
| license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
| Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶ | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.3. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.3. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3. Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 5.1. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 5.1. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 5.2. Single RPL Instance Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 5.2. Single RPL Instance Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 5.3. Double RPL Instances Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 5.3. Double RPL Instances Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 5.4. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 5.4. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| The transition of a RPL [RFC6550] network to activate the compression | The transition of a RPL [RFC6550] network to activate the compression | |||
| defined in [RFC8138] can only be done when all routers in the network | defined in [RFC8138] can only be done when all routers in the network | |||
| support it. Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as a router would | support it. Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as a router would | |||
| drop the compressed packets and black-hole its subDAG. In a mixed | drop the compressed packets and black-hole its subDAG. In a mixed | |||
| case with both RFC8138-capable and non-capable nodes, the compression | case with both RFC8138-capable and non-capable nodes, the compression | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 43 ¶ | |||
| the new RPL Instance for the traffic that they source. By contrast, | the new RPL Instance for the traffic that they source. By contrast, | |||
| nodes that only support the uncompressed format would either not be | nodes that only support the uncompressed format would either not be | |||
| configured for the new RPL Instance, or would be configured to join | configured for the new RPL Instance, or would be configured to join | |||
| it as leaves only. | it as leaves only. | |||
| This method eliminates the risks of nodes being stalled that are | This method eliminates the risks of nodes being stalled that are | |||
| described in Section 5.2 but requires implementations to support at | described in Section 5.2 but requires implementations to support at | |||
| least two RPL Instances and demands management capabilities to | least two RPL Instances and demands management capabilities to | |||
| introduce new RPL Instances and deprecate old ones. | introduce new RPL Instances and deprecate old ones. | |||
| The 2 instances MUST be operated with the same security guarantees, | ||||
| e.g., both "unsecured" with a lower layer security of a same | ||||
| strength, both "preinstalled" or both "authenticated" security mode | ||||
| (see section 3.2.3 of [RFC6550] for more details on those modes). | ||||
| The latter mode could be use to enforce the segregation of updated | ||||
| and non-updated nodes, by providing the keys for joining as routers | ||||
| to the updated nodes only. | ||||
| 5.4. Rolling Back | 5.4. Rolling Back | |||
| After downgrading a network to turn the [RFC8138] compression off, | After downgrading a network to turn the [RFC8138] compression off, | |||
| the administrator SHOULD make sure that all nodes have converged to | the administrator SHOULD make sure that all nodes have converged to | |||
| the "T" flag reset before allowing nodes that do not support the | the "T" flag reset before allowing nodes that do not support the | |||
| compression in the network (see caveats in Section 5.2). | compression in the network (see caveats in Section 5.2). | |||
| It is RECOMMENDED to only deploy nodes that support [RFC8138] in a | It is RECOMMENDED to only deploy nodes that support [RFC8138] in a | |||
| network where the compression is turned on. A node that does not | network where the compression is turned on. A node that does not | |||
| support [RFC8138] MUST only be used as a leaf. | support [RFC8138] MUST only be used as a leaf. | |||
| End of changes. 7 change blocks. | ||||
| 10 lines changed or deleted | 19 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||