< draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-20.txt		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-21.txt >
	ROLL Working Group M. Robles		ROLL Working Group M. Robles
	Internet-Draft Ericsson		Internet-Draft Ericsson
	Updates: 6553, 6550, 8138 (if approved) M. Richardson		Updates: 6553, 6550, 8138 (if approved) M. Richardson
	Intended status: Standards Track SSW		Intended status: Standards Track SSW
	Expires: August 2, 2018 P. Thubert		Expires: August 14, 2018 P. Thubert
	Cisco		Cisco
	January 29, 2018		February 10, 2018
	When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6		When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
	draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-20		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-21
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power		This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
	and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power		and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
	and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document		and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document
	enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6		enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6
	encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which		encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which
	to design efficient compression of these headers. Additionally, this		to design efficient compression of these headers. This document
	document updates the RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type		updates RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type.
	and the RFC 6550 to indicate about this change.		Additionally, this document updates RFC 6550 to indicate about this
			change and updates RFC8138 as well to consider the new Option Type
			when RPL Option is decompressed.
	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 August 2, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://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 6, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 10 ¶
	order bits MUST be set to '00' and the third bit is equal to '1'.		order bits MUST be set to '00' and the third bit is equal to '1'.
	The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST skip over this		The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node MUST skip over this
	option and continue processing the header ([RFC8200] Section 4.2) if		option and continue processing the header ([RFC8200] Section 4.2) if
	it doesn't recognize the option type, and the third bit continues to		it doesn't recognize the option type, and the third bit continues to
	be set to indicate that the Option Data may change en route. The		be set to indicate that the Option Data may change en route. The
	remaining bits serve as the option type and remain as 0x3. This		remaining bits serve as the option type and remain as 0x3. This
	ensures that a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that		ensures that a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that
	leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the		leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the
	[RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI.		[RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI.
	This is a significant update to [RFC6553].		This is a significant update to [RFC6553]. [RFCXXXX] represents this
			document.
	Hex Value Binary Value		Hex Value Binary Value
	act chg rest Description Reference		act chg rest Description Reference
	--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------		--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
	0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX]		0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX]
	Figure 2: Revised Option Type in RPL Option.		Figure 2: Revised Option Type in RPL Option.
	This change creates a flag day for existing networks which are		This change creates a flag day for existing networks which are
	currently using 0x63 as the RPI value. A move to 0x23 will not be		currently using 0x63 as the RPI value. A move to 0x23 will not be
	skipping to change at page 12, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 23 ¶
	RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)		RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
	not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)		not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing)
	not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)		not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing)
	This document is consistent with the rule that a Header cannot be		This document is consistent with the rule that a Header cannot be
	inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being		inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being
	routed. This is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as		routed. This is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as
	outlined in [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except		outlined in [RFC8200]. Extensions may not be added or removed except
	by the sender or the receiver.		by the sender or the receiver.
	However, unlike [RFC6553], the Hop-by-Hop Option Header used for the		However, unlike [RFC6553], the Hop-by-Hop Option Header used for the
	RPI artifact has the first two bits set to '00'. This means that the		RPI artifact has the first two bits set to '00'. This means that the
	RPI artifact will be ignored when received by a host or router that		RPI artifact will be ignored when received by a host or router that
	does not understand that option ( Section 4.2 [RFC8200]).		does not understand that option ( Section 4.2 [RFC8200]).
	This means that when the no-drop RPI option code 0x23 is used, a		This means that when the no-drop RPI option code 0x23 is used, a
	packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN		packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN
	entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the [RFC6553] RPL		entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the [RFC6553] RPL
	skipping to change at page 28, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 28, line 42 ¶
	For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node B		For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root) --> Node B
	--> Node E --> Node G		--> Node E --> Node G
	6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In		6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In
	this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the		this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the
	packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6).		packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6).
	In 6LBR the RH3 is added, it is modified at each intermediate 6LR		In 6LBR the RH3 is added, it is modified at each intermediate 6LR
	(6LR_1 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n),		(6LR_1 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n),
	but left there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not		but left there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not
	understand it will ignore it (following 2460bis), thus encapsulation		understand it will ignore it (following RFC8200), thus encapsulation
	is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the		is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the
	root, the 6LBR may optionally address the IP-in-IP header to the last		root, the 6LBR may optionally address the IP-in-IP header to the last
	6LR, such that it is removed prior to the IPv6 node.		6LR, such that it is removed prior to the IPv6 node.
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
	| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 |		| Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 |
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
	| Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- |		| Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- |
	| headers | RH3 | | | |		| headers | RH3 | | | |
	| Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- |		| Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- |
	skipping to change at page 40, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 40, line 10 ¶
	|1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC |		|1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC |
	+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+		+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
	Figure 9: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI).		Figure 9: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI).
	10. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	This document updates the registration made in [RFC6553] Destination		This document updates the registration made in [RFC6553] Destination
	Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23.		Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry from 0x63 to 0x23.
			[RFCXXXX] represents this document.
	Hex Value Binary Value		Hex Value Binary Value
	act chg rest Description Reference		act chg rest Description Reference
	--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------		--------- --- --- ------- ----------------- ----------
	0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX]		0x23 00 1 00011 RPL Option [RFCXXXX]
	0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option(DEPRECATED) [RFC6553][RFCXXXX]		0x63 01 1 00011 RPL Option(DEPRECATED) [RFC6553][RFCXXXX]
	Figure 10: Option Type in RPL Option.		Figure 10: Option Type in RPL Option.
	The DODAG Configuration Option Flags in the DODAG Configuration		The DODAG Configuration Option Flags in the DODAG Configuration
	option is updated as follows:		option is updated as follows:
	skipping to change at page 43, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 43, line 33 ¶
	13. References		13. References
	13.1. Normative References		13.1. 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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
	(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
	December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
	[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in		[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
	IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,		IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
	December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.		December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
	[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:		[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
	Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source		Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
	Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,		Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
	May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.		May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
	[RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec		[RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec
	skipping to change at page 44, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 44, line 22 ¶
	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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
	[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing		[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
	of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,		of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
	[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
	and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
	the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
	(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
	[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>.
	[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6		[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
	(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,		(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
	skipping to change at page 45, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 44, line 46 ¶
	>145k hacked cameras", September 2016,		>145k hacked cameras", September 2016,
	<http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-		<http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-
	cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/>.		cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/>.
	[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]		[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
	Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-		Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-
	backbone-router-05 (work in progress), January 2018.		backbone-router-05 (work in progress), January 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis]		[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis]
	Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node		Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
	Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02 (work in		Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-03 (work in
	progress), October 2017.		progress), February 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
	Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
	of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-13 (work
	in progress), November 2017.
	[I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]		[I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]
	Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf-		Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf-
	6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress),		6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress),
	February 2017.		February 2017.
	[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]		[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
	Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic		Eckert, T., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic
	Control Plane (ACP)", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-		Control Plane (ACP)", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-
	plane-13 (work in progress), December 2017.		plane-13 (work in progress), December 2017.
	[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]		[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
	Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,		Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,
	S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key		S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
	Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-		Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
	keyinfra-09 (work in progress), October 2017.		keyinfra-09 (work in progress), October 2017.
	[I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]
	Thubert, P. and J. Pylakutty, "Root initiated routing
	state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-02 (work in
	progress), September 2017.
	[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for		[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
	Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,		Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.
	[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet		[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
	Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet		Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
	Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,		Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
	RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,		RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
	skipping to change at page 46, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 45, line 43 ¶
	[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and		[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
	J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes		J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
	in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,		in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.
	[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>.
			[RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A.,
			and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for
			the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks
			(RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7416>.
	[Second6TischPlugtest]		[Second6TischPlugtest]
	"2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", <http://www.ietf.org/mail-		"2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
	archive/web/6tisch/current/pdfgDMQcdCkRz.pdf>.		archive/web/6tisch/current/pdfgDMQcdCkRz.pdf>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Maria Ines Robles		Maria Ines Robles
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	Hirsalantie 11		Hirsalantie 11
	Jorvas 02420		Jorvas 02420
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	32 lines changed or deleted		23 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/