< draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-01.txt		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-02.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 29, 2016 SSW		Expires: September 22, 2016 SSW
	P. Thubert		P. Thubert
	Cisco		Cisco
	February 26, 2016		March 21, 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-01		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-02
	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 29, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 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 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 41 ¶
	6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 21		6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 21
	6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 21		6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 21
	6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22		6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22
	6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 23		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 . . . 24		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 . . 25		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 26		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 27		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	7. Future RPL work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		7. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		8. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
			12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		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 13, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 35 ¶
	5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf		5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf
	In this case the flow comprises:		In this case the flow comprises:
	Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)		Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
	6LBR get the packet from Internet and add a RPI header encapsulated		6LBR get the packet from Internet and add a RPI header encapsulated
	in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to 6LR and send the packet down.		in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to 6LR and send the packet down.
	The flow label is set to zero on inner IP. The last 6LR removes the		The flow label is set to zero on inner IP. The last 6LR removes the
	RPI header. The IPv6 node might set the flow label since may arrive		RPI header. The IPv6 node might set the flow label since may arrive
	with zero value. The 6LBR does not know that the is attached to the		with zero value. The RPI should be in IP-in-IP header.
	last 6LR. The non-RPL-aware-leaf drops packet, because RPI has
	unknown header 0x63, and 0x63 has "01" = discard packet. If RPI had
	0x23, it would "skip".
	+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+		+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
	| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |		| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR | IPv6 |
	| | t | | | |		| | t | | | |
	+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+		+----------+---------+-------------------+-------------------+------+
	| Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |		| Inserted | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- | -- |
	| headers | | | | |		| headers | | | | |
	| Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |		| Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) | -- |
	| headers | | | | |		| headers | | | | |
	| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |		| Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- |
	skipping to change at page 18, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 38 ¶
	| rs | | | | | |		| rs | | | | | |
	+-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+		+-------+----+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
	Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	RPL-aware-leaf		RPL-aware-leaf
	5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf		5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
	In this case the flow comprises:		In this case the flow comprises:
	not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware		not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)--> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-
	6LN		RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 node)
	The problem to solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when		The problem to solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when
	get into LLN. Should attributes be added to the border router		get into LLN. One approach is that the 6LBR should know in which 6LR
	indicating this?		the IPv6 node is attached. The RPI information is encapsulated in a
			IPv6-in-IPv6 header, each IPv6-in-IPv6 header needs to be added/
			removed at each hop..
	+---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+		+---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+
	| Header | IPv | 6LR | 6LR | 6LR | IPv6 |		| Header | IPv | 6LR | 6LR | 6LR | IPv6 |
	| | 6 | | (common | | dst |		| | 6 | | (common | | dst |
	| | src | | parent) | | |		| | src | | parent) | | |
	+---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+		+---------+-----+----------------+---------+-----------------+------+
	| Inserte | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- |		| Inserte | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- | -- |
	| d | | IPv6(RPI) | | | |		| d | | IPv6(RPI) | | | |
	| headers | | | | | |		| headers | | | | | |
	| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- |		| Removed | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- |
	| headers | | | | IPv6(RPI) | |		| headers | | | | IPv6(RPI) | |
	skipping to change at page 28, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 28, line 26 ¶
	| headers | | | | | |		| headers | | | | | |
	| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |		| Modified | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
	| headers | | | | | |		| headers | | | | | |
	| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |		| Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
	| headers | | | | | |		| headers | | | | | |
	+--------------+------+-----------+-----------+--------------+------+		+--------------+------+-----------+-----------+--------------+------+
	Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	not-RPL-aware-leaf		not-RPL-aware-leaf
	7. Future RPL work		7. Problem statement
	There are cases from above that are not clear how to send the		There are cases from above that are not clear how to send the
	information. It requires furhter analysis on how to proceed to send		information. It requires furhter analysis on how to proceed to send
	the information from source to destination.		the information from source to destination.
	From the above cases, we have in storing mode:		From the above cases, we have in storing mode:
	- Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf: Somehow, the sender		- Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf: Somehow, the sender
	has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware, and needs to know		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 located.		6LR, and not even the root knows where the 6LR is located.
	- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf: The problem to		- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf: The problem to
	solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when get into LLN.		solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when get into LLN.
			One approach is the 6LBR should be aware in which 6LR is the IPv6
			node attached.
	8. IANA Considerations		As was mentioned above in the document, a possible solution could be
			adapted to all cases: 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.
			8. 6LoRH Compression cases
			The [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method for
			RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6.
			The uses cases mentioned in this draft MUST use 6LoRH. Examples of
			the use of 6LoRH are found in Apendix A of
			[I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch].
			9. IANA Considerations
	There are no IANA considerations related to this document.		There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
	9. Security Considerations		10. Security Considerations
	TODO.		The security considerations covering of [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] apply
			when the packets get into RPL Domain.
	10. Acknowledgments		11. Acknowledgments
	This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training		This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training
	Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728).		Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728).
	The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and		The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and
	comments of Thomas Watteyne, Xavier Vilajosana and Robert Cragie.		comments of Thomas Watteyne, Xavier Vilajosana, Robert Cragie and
			Simon Duquennoy.
	To be completed with additional Acknowledgments.
	11. References		12. References
	11.1. Normative References		12.1. 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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,		[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
	Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,		Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
	JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for		JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
	Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,		Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
	skipping to change at page 29, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 30, line 11 ¶
	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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
	[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6		[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
	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		12.2. 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-05 (work in progress), February 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.
End of changes. 18 change blocks.
	30 lines changed or deleted		48 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/