< draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14.txt   draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-15.txt >
ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft L. Zhao Internet-Draft L. Zhao
Updates: 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 6550, 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track September 8, 2020 Intended status: Standards Track 18 September 2020
Expires: March 12, 2021 Expires: 22 March 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-rfc8138-14 draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-15
Abstract Abstract
This document updates RFC 8138 by defining a bit in the RPL DODAG This document updates RFC 8138 by defining a bit in the RPL DODAG
Configuration Option to indicate whether compression is used within Configuration Option to indicate whether compression is used within
the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior of RFC 8138-capable nodes the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior of RFC 8138-capable nodes
when the bit is set and reset. when the bit is set and unset.
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 March 12, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 March 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 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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. Updating RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The design of Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally The design of Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) is generally
focused on saving energy, which is the most constrained resource of focused on saving energy, which is the most constrained resource of
all. The routing optimizations in the "Routing Protocol for Low all. The routing optimizations in the "Routing Protocol for Low
Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] (RPL) such as routing along a Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] (RPL) such as routing along a
Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) to a Root Node Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) to a Root Node
and the associated packet compression technique [RFC8138] derive from and the associated routing header compression and forwarding
that primary concern. technique specified in [RFC8138] derive from that primary concern.
Enabling [RFC8138] requires a Flag Day where the network is upgraded Enabling [RFC8138] on a running network requires a Flag Day where the
and rebooted. Otherwise, if acting as a Leaf, a node that does not network is upgraded and rebooted. Otherwise, if acting as a Leaf, a
support the compression would fail to communicate; if acting as a node that does not support the compression would fail to communicate;
router it would drop the compressed packets and black-hole a portion if acting as a router it would drop the compressed packets and black-
of the network. This specification enables a hot upgrade where a hole a portion of the network. This specification enables a hot
live network is migrated. During the migration, the compression upgrade where a live network is migrated. During the migration, the
remains inactive, until all nodes are upgraded. compression remains inactive, until all nodes are upgraded.
This document complements [RFC8138] and dedicates a flag in the RPL This document complements [RFC8138] and signals whether it should be
DODAG Configuration Option to indicate whether the [RFC8138] used within a RPL DODAG with a new flag in the RPL DODAG
compression should be used within the RPL DODAG. The setting of this Configuration Option. The setting of this new flag is controlled by
new flag is controlled by the Root and propagates as is in the whole the Root and propagates as is in the whole network as part of the
network as part of the normal RPL signaling. normal RPL signaling.
The flag is cleared to maintain the compression inactive during the The flag is cleared to maintain the compression inactive during the
migration phase. When the migration is complete (e.g., as known by migration phase. When the migration is complete (e.g., as known by
network management and/or inventory), the flag is set and the network management and/or inventory), the flag is set and the
compression is globally activated in the whole DODAG. compression is globally activated in the whole DODAG.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. References 2.1. References
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
2.2. Glossary 2.2. Glossary
This document often uses the following acronyms: This document often uses the following acronyms:
6LoWPAN: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network 6LoWPAN: IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
6LoRH: 6LoWPAN Routing Header 6LoRH: 6LoWPAN Routing Header
DIO: DODAG Information Object (a RPL message) DIO: DODAG Information Object (a RPL message)
DODAG: Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph DODAG: Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph
LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network LLN: Low-Power and Lossy Network
RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
SubDAG: Subset of a DAG that is a child of a node SubDAG: A DODAG rooted at a node which is a child of that node and a
subset of a larger DAG
MOP: RPL Mode of Operation MOP: RPL Mode of Operation
RPI: RPL Packet Information RPI: RPL Packet Information
RAL: RPL-Aware Leaf RAL: RPL-Aware Leaf
RAN: RPL-Aware Node RAN: RPL-Aware Node
RUL: RPL-Unaware Leaf RUL: RPL-Unaware Leaf
SRH: Source Routing Header SRH: Source Routing Header
2.3. Requirements Language 2.3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option 3. Updating RFC 6550
The DODAG Configuration Option is defined in Section 6.7.6 of The DODAG Configuration Option is defined in Section 6.7.6 of
[RFC6550]. [RFC6550]. Its purpose is extended to distribute configuration
information affecting the construction and maintenance of the DODAG,
The RPL DODAG Configuration Option is typically placed in a DODAG as well as operational parameters for RPL on the DODAG, through the
Information Object (DIO) message. The DIO message propagates down DODAG. As shown in Figure 1, the Option was originally designed with
the DODAG to form and then maintain its structure. The DODAG 4 bit positions reserved for future use as Flags.
Configuration Option is copied unmodified from parents to children.
As shown in Figure 1, the DODAG Configuration Option was designed
with 4 bit positions reserved for future use as Flags.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| | |T| |A| ... | | Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| | |T| |A| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| <- Flags -> ... |
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 [RFC8138] within the
RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within the DODAG. The new "T" flag is DODAG. The "T" flag is encoded in position 2 of the reserved Flags
encoded in position 2 of the reserved Flags field in the RPL DODAG in the DODAG Configuration Option (counting from bit 0 as the most
Configuration Option, and set to 0 in legacy implementations as significant bit) and set to 0 in legacy implementations as specified
specified in Section 6.7.6 of [RFC6550]. respectively in Sections 20.14 and 6.7.6 of [RFC6550].
[RFC6550] states, when referring to the DODAG Configuration Option, The RPL DODAG Configuration Option is typically placed in a DODAG
that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT modify this Information Object (DIO) message. The DIO message propagates down
information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option". the DODAG to form and then maintain its structure. The DODAG
Therefore, a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as set by the Root Configuration Option is copied unmodified from parents to children.
whether it supports this specification or not. So when the "T" flag
is set, it is transparently flooded to all the nodes in the DODAG.
Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
the DIO Base Object. This specification applies to MOP values 0 to the DIO Base Object. This specification applies to MOP values 0 to
6. For a MOP value of 7, the compression MUST be used by default 6. For a MOP value of 7, the bit in position 2 is considered
regardless of the setting of the "T" flag. unallocated and [RFC8138] MUST be used by default.
[RFC6550] states that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT
modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration
option". Therefore, a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as set
by the Root whether it supports this specification or not. So when
the "T" flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the nodes in
the DODAG.
4. Updating RFC 8138 4. Updating RFC 8138
A node SHOULD generate packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138] A node SHOULD generate packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138]
if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behavior can be overridden if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behavior can be overridden
by configuration or network management. Overriding may be needed by configuration or network management. Overriding may be needed
e.g., to turn on the compression in a network where all nodes support e.g., to turn on the compression in a network where all nodes support
[RFC8138] but the Root does not support this specification and cannot [RFC8138] but the Root does not support this specification and cannot
set the "T" flag, or to disable it locally in case of a problem. set the "T" flag, or to disable it locally in case of a problem.
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
the form that the source used, either compressed or uncompressed. the form that the source used, either compressed or uncompressed.
A RUL [UNAWARE-LEAVES] is both a leaf and an external target. A RUL A RUL [UNAWARE-LEAVES] is both a leaf and an external target. A RUL
does not participate in RPL and depends on the parent router to does not participate in RPL and depends on the parent router to
obtain connectivity. In the case of a RUL, forwarding towards an obtain connectivity. In the case of a RUL, forwarding towards an
external target actually means delivering the packet. external target actually means delivering the packet.
5. Transition Scenarios 5. Transition Scenarios
A node that supports [RFC8138] but not this specification can only be A node that supports [RFC8138] but not this specification can only be
used in an homogeneous network. Enabling the [RFC8138] compression used in a homogeneous network. Enabling the [RFC8138] compression
without a turn-on signaling method requires a "flag day"; by which without a turn-on signaling method requires a "flag day"; by which
time all nodes must be upgraded, and at which point the network can time all nodes must be upgraded, and at which point the network can
be rebooted with the [RFC8138] compression turned on. be rebooted with the [RFC8138] compression turned on.
The intent for this specification is to perform a migration once and The intent for this specification is to perform a migration once and
for all without the need for a flag day. In particular it is not the for all without the need for a flag day. In particular it is not the
intention to undo the setting of the "T" flag. Though it is possible intention to undo the setting of the "T" flag. Though it is possible
to roll back (see Section 5.3, the network operator SHOULD ensure to roll back (see Section 5.3), the roll back operation SHOULD be
that the roll back operation is completed before adding nodes that do complete before the network operator adds nodes that do not support
not support [RFC8138]. [RFC8138].
5.1. Coexistence 5.1. Coexistence
A node that supports this specification can operate in a network with A node that supports this specification can operate in a network with
the [RFC8138] compression turned on or off with the "T" flag set the [RFC8138] compression turned on or off with the "T" flag set
accordingly and in a network in transition from off to on or on to accordingly and in a network in transition from off to on or on to
off (see Section 5.2). off (see Section 5.2).
A node that does not support [RFC8138] can interoperate with nodes A node that does not support [RFC8138] can interoperate with nodes
that do in a network with [RFC8138] compression turned off. If the that do in a network with [RFC8138] compression turned off. If the
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 39
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
the RPL Instance may potentially join any DODAG. The network MUST be the RPL Instance may potentially join any DODAG. The network MUST be
operated with the "T" flag reset until all nodes in the RPL Instance operated with the "T" flag unset until all nodes in the RPL Instance
are upgraded to support this specification. are upgraded to support this specification.
5.3. Rolling Back 5.3. Rolling Back
When turning [RFC8138] compression off in the network, the Network When turning [RFC8138] compression off in the network, the Network
Administrator MUST wait until all nodes have converged to the "T" Administrator MUST wait until all nodes have converged to the "T"
flag reset before allowing nodes that do not support the compression flag unset before allowing nodes that do not support the compression
in the network. To that effect, whether the compression is active in in the network. To that effect, whether the compression is active in
a node SHOULD be exposed the node's management interface. a node SHOULD be exposed the node's management interface.
Nodes that do not support [RFC8138] SHOULD NOT be deployed in a Nodes that do not support [RFC8138] SHOULD NOT be deployed in a
network where the compression is turned on. If that is done, the network where the compression is turned on. If that is done, the
node can only operate as a RUL. node can only operate as a RUL.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a new option flag from the Registry for IANA is requested to assign a new option flag from the Registry for
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
based attack in the network, more in [RFC7416]. This document based attack in the network, more in [RFC7416]. This document
applies typically to an existing deployment and does not change its applies typically to an existing deployment and does not change its
security requirements and operations. It is assumed that the security requirements and operations. It is assumed that the
security mechanisms as defined for RPL are followed. security mechanisms as defined for RPL are followed.
Setting the "T" flag before all routers are upgraded may cause a loss Setting the "T" flag before all routers are upgraded may cause a loss
of packets. The new bit is protected as the rest of the of packets. The new bit is protected as the rest of the
configuration so this is just one of the many attacks that can happen configuration so this is just one of the many attacks that can happen
if an attacker manages to inject a corrupted configuration. if an attacker manages to inject a corrupted configuration.
Setting and resetting the "T" flag may create inconsistencies in the Setting and unsetting the "T" flag may create inconsistencies in the
network but as long as all nodes are upgraded to [RFC8138] support network but as long as all nodes are upgraded to [RFC8138] support
they will be able to forward both forms. The source is responsible they will be able to forward both forms. The source is responsible
for selecting whether the packet is compressed or not, and all for selecting whether the packet is compressed or not, and all
routers must use the format that the source selected. So the result routers must use the format that the source selected. So the result
of an inconsistency is merely that both forms will be present in the of an inconsistency is merely that both forms will be present in the
network, at an additional cost of bandwidth for packets in the network, at an additional cost of bandwidth for packets in the
uncompressed form. uncompressed form.
An attacker in the middle of the network may reset the "T" flag to An attacker may unset the "T" flag to force additional energy
cause extra energy spending in the subset of the DODAG formed by its consumption of child or descendant nodes in its subDAG. Conversely
descendants (its subDAG). Conversely it may set the "T" flag, so it may set the "T" flag, so that nodes located downstream would
that nodes located downstream would compress when that it is not compress when that it is not desired, potentially resulting in the
desired, potentially resulting in the loss of packets. In a tree loss of packets. In a tree structure, the attacker would be in
structure, the attacker would be in position to drop the packets from position to drop the packets from and to the attacked nodes. So the
and to the attacked nodes. So the attacks above would be more attacks above would be more complex and more visible than simply
complex and more visible than simply dropping selected packets. The dropping selected packets. The downstream node may have other
downstream node may have other parents and see both settings, which parents and see both settings, which could raise attention.
could raise attention.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Murray Kucherawy, Meral Shirazipour, Barry The authors wish to thank Murray Kucherawy, Meral Shirazipour, Barry
Leiba, Tirumaleswar Reddy, Nagendra Kumar Nainar, Stewart Bryant, Leiba, Tirumaleswar Reddy, Nagendra Kumar Nainar, Stewart Bryant,
Carles Gomez, Eric Vyncke, and especially Alvaro Retana, Dominique Carles Gomez, Eric Vyncke, Roman Danyliw, and especially Benjamin
Barthel and Rahul Jadhav for their in-depth reviews and constructive Kaduk, Alvaro Retana, Dominique Barthel and Rahul Jadhav for their
suggestions. in-depth reviews and constructive suggestions.
Also many thanks to Michael Richardson for being always helpful and Also many thanks to Michael Richardson for being always helpful and
responsive when need comes. responsive when need comes.
9. Normative References 9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[UNAWARE-LEAVES] [UNAWARE-LEAVES]
Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves", Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware- Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-
leaves-18, June 12, 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ leaves-18, 12 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18>. 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>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 35 skipping to change at page 9, line 35
and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
[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,
June 25, 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
Pascal Thubert (editor) Pascal Thubert (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
France France
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 68 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/