< draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-08.txt		draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-09.txt >
	ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.		ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.
	Internet-Draft L. Zhao		Internet-Draft L. Zhao
	Updates: 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems		Updates: 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems
	Intended status: Standards Track 8 July 2020		Intended status: Standards Track 27 July 2020
	Expires: 9 January 2021		Expires: 28 January 2021
	A RPL DODAG Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header		A RPL DODAG Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header
	draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-08		draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document updates RFC 8138 and RFC 6550 by defining a bit in the		This document updates RFC 8138 by defining a bit in the RPL DODAG
	RPL DODAG Configuration Option to indicate whether RFC 8138		Configuration Option to indicate whether compression is used within
	compression is used within the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior		the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior of RFC 8138-capable nodes
	of RFC 8138-capable nodes when the bit is set and reset.		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 9 January 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 January 2021.
	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 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 20 ¶
	2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5.1. Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.1. Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.3. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.3. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The packet compression technique defined in [RFC8138] can only be		The packet compression technique defined in [RFC8138] can only be
	activated in a RPL [RFC6550] network when all the nodes support it.		activated in a RPL [RFC6550] network when all the nodes support it.
	Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as leaf-only would fail to		Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as leaf-only would fail to
	communicate, and acting as a router it would drop the compressed		communicate, and acting as a router it would drop the compressed
	packets and black-hole a portion of the network.		packets and black-hole a portion of the network.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| Flags |A| ... |		| Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| Flags |A| ... |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
	| ... |		| ... |
	Figure 1: DODAG Configuration Option (Partial View)		Figure 1: DODAG Configuration Option (Partial View)
	This specification defines a new flag "Enable RFC8138 Compression"		This specification defines a new flag "Enable RFC8138 Compression"
	(T). The "T" flag is set to turn-on the use of the compression of		(T). The "T" flag is set to turn-on the use of the compression of
	RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within the DODAG. The new "T" flag is		RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within the DODAG. The new "T" flag is
	encoded in one of the reserved bits in the RPL DODAG Configuration		encoded in the Flags field in the RPL DODAG Configuration Option.
	Option. The suggested bit position of the "T" flag is indicated in		The suggested bit position of the "T" flag is indicated in Section 6.
	Section 6.
	/[RFC6550] states, [RFC6550] states, when referring to the DODAG		[RFC6550] states, when referring to the DODAG Configuration Option,
	Configuration Option, that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT		that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT modify this
	modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration		information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option".
	option". Therefore, even a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as		Therefore, a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as set by the Root
	set by the Root whether it supports this specification or not. So		whether it supports this specification or not. So when the "T" flag
	when the "T" flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the		is set, it is transparently flooded to all the nodes in the DODAG.
	nodes in the DODAG.
	Section 6.3.1. of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP)		Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
	in the DIO Base Object. The new "T" flag is defined only for MOP		the DIO Base Object. For MOP values 0 to 6, the use of compression
	value between 0 to 6.		depends on the "T" flag as specified in this document. A MOP value
			of 7 and above MUST use compression by default and ignore the setting
			of the "T" flag.
	4. Updating RFC 8138		4. Updating RFC 8138
	A node SHOULD source packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138]		A node SHOULD source packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138]
	if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behaviour can be overridden		if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behaviour can be overridden
	by e.g., configuration or network management. Overriding may be		by e.g., configuration or network management. Overriding may be
	needed e.g., to cope with a legacy implementations of the Root that		needed e.g., to cope with a legacy implementations of the Root that
	supports [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the "T"		supports [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the "T"
	flag.		flag.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶
	able to handle compressed packets in the compressed form. A node		able to handle compressed packets in the compressed form. A node
	that cannot do so may remain connected to the network as a RUL, but		that cannot do so may remain connected to the network as a RUL, but
	how the node is modified to turn into a RUL is out of scope.		how the node is modified to turn into a RUL is out of scope.
	5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating		5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating
	When the "T" flag is turned on by the Root, the information slowly		When the "T" flag is turned on by the Root, the information slowly
	percolates through the DODAG as the DIO gets propagated. Some nodes		percolates through the DODAG as the DIO gets propagated. Some nodes
	will see the flag and start sourcing packets in the compressed form		will see the flag and start sourcing packets in the compressed form
	while other nodes in the same RPL DODAG are still not aware of it.		while other nodes in the same RPL DODAG are still not aware of it.
	Conversely, in non-storing mode, the Root will start using [RFC8138]		In non-storing mode, the Root will start using [RFC8138] with a
	with a Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) that routes all the		Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) that routes all the way to
	way to the parent router or to the leaf.		the parent router or to the leaf.
	To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL DODAG in the form		To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL DODAG in the form
	in which it was generated, it is required that all the RPL nodes		in which it was generated, it is required that all the RPL nodes
	support [RFC8138] at the time of the switch.		support [RFC8138] at the time of the switch.
	Setting the "T" flag is ultimately the responsibility of the Network		Setting the "T" flag is ultimately the responsibility of the Network
	Administrator. The expectation is that the network management or		Administrator. The expectation is that the network management or
	upgrading tools in place enable the Network Administrator to know		upgrading tools in place enable the Network Administrator to know
	when all the nodes that may join a DODAG were migrated. In the case		when all the nodes that may join a DODAG were migrated. In the case
	of a RPL instance with multiple Roots, all nodes that participate to		of a RPL instance with multiple Roots, all nodes that participate to
	skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶
	as follows:		as follows:
	+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+		+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
	| Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference |		| Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference |
	+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+		+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
	| 2 (suggested) | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | THIS RFC |		| 2 (suggested) | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | THIS RFC |
	+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+		+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
	Table 1: New DODAG Configuration Option Flag		Table 1: New DODAG Configuration Option Flag
	The DODAG Configuration Option Flags defined so far will be obsolete
	for RPL Mode of Operation (MOP) above and including 7.
	IANA is requested to update the name of the Registry from "DODAG
	Configuration Option Flags" to "DODAG Configuration Option Flags for
	RPL MOP 0..6".
	When MOP values of 7 and more are defined, a new registry will be
	needed.
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in		First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in
	the LLN that is RPL-aware can inject any RPL-based attack in the		the LLN that is RPL-aware can inject any RPL-based attack in the
	network. A trust model has to be put in place in an effort to		network. A trust model has to be put in place in an effort to
	exclude rogue nodes from participating to the RPL and the 6LoWPAN		exclude rogue nodes from participating to the RPL and the 6LoWPAN
	signaling, as well as from the data packet exchange. This trust		signaling, as well as from the data packet exchange. This trust
	model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the		model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the
	Link-Layer security. This is a generic RPL and 6LoWPAN requirement,		Link-Layer security. This is a generic RPL and 6LoWPAN requirement,
	see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505].		see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505].
	skipping to change at page 8, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 30 ¶
	[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and		[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
	Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January		Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
	2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.		2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
	[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,		[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
	"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network		"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
	(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,		(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
	April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.		April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
			[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
			Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
			Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
			Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
			[UNAWARE-LEAVES]
			Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",
			Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-
			leaves-18, 12 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
			draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18>.
	10. Informative References		10. Informative References
	[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-		[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
	Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL		Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
	Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,		Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
	[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for		[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
	Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,		Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
	[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
	Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
	Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
	Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
	[UNAWARE-LEAVES]
	Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",
	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-
	leaves-18, 12 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
	draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18>.
	[USEofRPLinfo]		[USEofRPLinfo]
	Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI		Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI
	Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-		Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-
	IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in		IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in
	Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40,		Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40,
	25 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-		25 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
	roll-useofrplinfo-40>.		roll-useofrplinfo-40>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	48 lines changed or deleted		38 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/