< draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-00.txt		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-01.txt >
	ROLL Working Group M. Robles		ROLL Working Group M. Robles
	Internet-Draft Ericsson		Internet-Draft Ericsson
	Intended status: Informational M. Richardson		Intended status: Informational M. Richardson
	Expires: August 1, 2016 SSW		Expires: August 29, 2016 SSW
	P. Thubert		P. Thubert
	Cisco		Cisco
	January 29, 2016		February 26, 2016
	When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6		When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
	draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-00		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and		This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and
	IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help		IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the bases to help
	defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN		defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN
	environments.		environments.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 August 1, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 24 ¶
	5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 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		5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 9
	5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 10		5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 10
	5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 10		5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 10
	5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 11		5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 11
	5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 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		5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 12
	5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 13		5.8. 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		5.9. 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		5.10. 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 16		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-		5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
	leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	6. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 18		6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 19
	6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . 19		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 . . . . . 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 . . . . . 20		6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 21
	6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 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 . . . 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 . . . 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 . . 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 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 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-		6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-
	leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	7. Future RPL work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		7. Future RPL work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	RPL [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC		RPL [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC
	6553 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop-		6553 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop-
	by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing		by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing
	topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route Header",		topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route Header",
	an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing		an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing
	domain.		domain.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 33 ¶
	aware-leaf		aware-leaf
	5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf		5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
	In this case the flow comprises:		In this case the flow comprises:
	6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN		6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN
	Somehow, the sender has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware,		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		and needs to know 6LR, and not even the root knows where the 6LR is
	(in storing mode). This case FAILS. This needs to be signaled.		(in storing mode).
	Attribute of ::/0 route? Or implicit because destination not
	matching PIO? If in doubt, add IPIP? IPIP dst = 6LBR (00)		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.
			,---.
			/ \
			( 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.
	+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+		+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+
	| Heade | 6LN | 6LR | 6LR (common | 6LR | IPv |		| Heade | 6LN | 6LR | 6LR (common | 6LR | IPv |
	| r | | | parent) | | 6 |		| r | | | parent) | | 6 |
	+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+		+-------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-----+
	| Inser | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- | -- |		| Inser | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
	| ted h | IPv6(RPI) | | | | |		| ted h | IPv6(RPI) | | | | |
	| eader | | | | | |		| eader | | | | | |
	| s | | | | | |		| s | | | | | |
	| Remov | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- |		| Remov | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- |
	| ed he | | | | IPv6(RPI) | |		| ed he | | | | IPv6(RPI) | |
	skipping to change at page 28, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 48 ¶
	Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol		Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
	for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,		for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch]		[I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch]
	Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,		Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
	"6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-6lo-routing-		"6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-6lo-routing-
	dispatch-04 (work in progress), January 2016.		dispatch-05 (work in progress), February 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]		[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
	Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode		Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
	of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work		of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-09 (work
	in progress), November 2015.		in progress), November 2015.
	[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.		2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
End of changes. 9 change blocks.
	31 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/