< draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-24.txt		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25.txt >
	ROLL Working Group M. Robles		ROLL Working Group M. Robles
	Internet-Draft Aalto		Internet-Draft Aalto
	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: July 27, 2019 P. Thubert		Expires: September 12, 2019 P. Thubert
	Cisco		Cisco
	January 23, 2019		March 11, 2019
	Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-		Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6
	IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane		encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane
	draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-24		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25
	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 (RPL Option Type), RFC 6554		enumerates the cases where RFC 6553 (RPL Option Type), RFC 6554
	(Routing Header for Source Routes) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is		(Routing Header for Source Routes) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is
	required in data plane. This analysis provides the basis on which to		required in data plane. This analysis provides the basis on which to
	design efficient compression of these headers. This document updates		design efficient compression of these headers. This document updates
	skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶
	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 July 27, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Updates to RFC6553, RFC6550 and RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Updates to RFC6553, RFC6550 and RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Updates to RFC 6553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Updates to RFC 6553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. Updates to RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2. Updates to RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3. Updates to RFC 6550: Indicating the new RPI in the		3.3. Updates to RFC 6550: Indicating the new RPI in the
	DODAG Configuration Option Flag. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		DODAG Configuration Option Flag. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . . . 16		6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . . . 16
	6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . 17		6.1.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . 17
	6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . 18		6.1.2. SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . 18
	6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . 18		6.1.3. SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . 18
	6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . 19		6.1.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . 19
	6.2. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet. . . 20		6.2. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet. . . 20
	6.2.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . 20		6.2.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . 20
	6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . 21		6.2.2. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . 21
	6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		6.2.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	6.2.4. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-		6.2.4. SM: Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-
	leaf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		leaf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	6.3. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Leaf . . . . . 24		6.3. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Leaf . . . . . 24
	6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-		6.3.1. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-
	leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-		6.3.2. SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-
	aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-		6.3.3. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
	aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-		6.3.4. SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-
	RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	7. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		7. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . 31		7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . 30
	7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . 32		7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . 31
	7.1.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . 32		7.1.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . 31
	7.1.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-		7.1.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-
	leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	7.1.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		7.1.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	7.2. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . 35		7.2. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Internet . 34
	7.2.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to		7.2.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to
	Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	7.2.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-		7.2.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-
	leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36		leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	7.2.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		7.2.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
	7.2.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-		7.2.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-
	aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38		aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	7.3. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leafs . . . . . . . 39		7.3. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leafs . . . . . . . 38
	7.3.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-		7.3.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-
	aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39		aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	7.3.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-		7.3.2. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-
	RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41		RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
	7.3.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		7.3.3. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42		RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
	7.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to		7.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to
	not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43		not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
	8. Operational Considerations of supporting		8. Operational Considerations of supporting
	not-RPL-aware-leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43		not-RPL-aware-leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
	9. Operational considerations of introducing 0x23 . . . . . . . 44		9. Operational considerations of introducing 0x23 . . . . . . . 43
	9.1. Has deployment been discussed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
	9.2. Has installation and initial setup been discussed?? . . . 45		11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
	9.3. Has the migration path been discussed? . . . . . . . . . 45		12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
	9.4. Have the Requirements on other protocols and		13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
	functional components been discussed? . . . . . . . . . . 45		13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
	9.5. Has the impact on network operation been discussed? . . . 45		13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
	9.6. Have suggestions for verifying correct operation been		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
	discussed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
	9.7. Has management interoperability been discussed? . . . . . 45
	9.8. Are there fault or threshold conditions that should be
	reported? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
	9.9. Is configuration discussed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
	11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
	12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
	13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
	13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
	13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)		RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
	[RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553		[RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553
	[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6		[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6
	Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the		Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the
	routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route		routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route
	Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a		Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a
	RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode.		RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 35 ¶
	type 3 [RFC6554], as well as an efficient IPv6-in-IPv6 technique.		type 3 [RFC6554], as well as an efficient IPv6-in-IPv6 technique.
	1.1. Overview		1.1. Overview
	The rest of the document is organized as follows: Section 2 describes		The rest of the document is organized as follows: Section 2 describes
	the used terminology. Section 3 describes the updates to RFC6553,		the used terminology. Section 3 describes the updates to RFC6553,
	RFC6550 and RFC 8138. Section 4 provides the reference topology used		RFC6550 and RFC 8138. Section 4 provides the reference topology used
	for the uses cases. Section 5 describes the uses cases included.		for the uses cases. Section 5 describes the uses cases included.
	Section 6 describes the storing mode cases and section 7 the non-		Section 6 describes the storing mode cases and section 7 the non-
	storing mode cases. Section 8 describes the operational		storing mode cases. Section 8 describes the operational
	considerations for the proposed change on RPL Option type. Section 9		considerations of supporting not-RPL-aware-leaves. Section 9 depicts
	depicts the 6LoRH Compression cases, section 10 the IANA		operational considerations for the proposed change on RPL Option
	considerations and then section 11 describes the security aspects.		type, section 10 the IANA considerations and then section 11
			describes the security aspects.
	2. Terminology and Requirements Language		2. Terminology and 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.
	Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN,		Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN,
	skipping to change at page 5, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶
	inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-aware node which is a		inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-aware node which is a
	leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf (~Raf).		leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf (~Raf).
	6LN: [RFC6775] defines it as: "A 6LoWPAN node is any host or router		6LN: [RFC6775] defines it as: "A 6LoWPAN node is any host or router
	participating in a LoWPAN. This term is used when referring to		participating in a LoWPAN. This term is used when referring to
	situations in which either a host or router can play the role		situations in which either a host or router can play the role
	described.". In this document, a 6LN acts as a leaf.		described.". In this document, a 6LN acts as a leaf.
	6LR, 6LBR are defined in [RFC6775].		6LR, 6LBR are defined in [RFC6775].
	Flag Day: A transition that involves have a network with different		Flag Day: A transition that involves having a network with different
	values of RPL Option Type. Thus the network do not work correctly.		values of RPL Option Type. Thus the network does not work correctly.
	Hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers: The term "hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6"		Hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers: The term "hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6"
	header refers to: adding a header that originates from a node to an		header refers to: adding a header that originates from a node to an
	adjacent node, using the addresses (usually the GUA or ULA, but could		adjacent node, using the addresses (usually the GUA or ULA, but could
	use the link-local addresses) of each node. If the packet must		use the link-local addresses) of each node. If the packet must
	traverse multiple hops, then it must be decapsulated at each hop, and		traverse multiple hops, then it must be decapsulated at each hop, and
	then re-encapsulated again in a similar fashion.		then re-encapsulated again in a similar fashion.
	3. Updates to RFC6553, RFC6550 and RFC 8138		3. Updates to RFC6553, RFC6550 and RFC 8138
	skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 42 ¶
	traffic to the Internet. This change clarifies when to use an IPv6-		traffic to the Internet. This change clarifies when to use an IPv6-
	in-IPv6 header, and how to address them: The Hop-by-Hop Options		in-IPv6 header, and how to address them: The Hop-by-Hop Options
	Header containing the RPI option SHOULD always be added when 6LRs		Header containing the RPI option SHOULD always be added when 6LRs
	originate packets (without IPv6-in-IPv6 headers), and IPv6-in-IPv6		originate packets (without IPv6-in-IPv6 headers), and IPv6-in-IPv6
	headers SHOULD always be added when a 6LR find that it needs to		headers SHOULD always be added when a 6LR find that it needs to
	insert a Hop-by-Hop Options Header containing the RPI option. The		insert a Hop-by-Hop Options Header containing the RPI option. The
	IPv6-in-IPv6 header is to be addressed to the RPL root when on the		IPv6-in-IPv6 header is to be addressed to the RPL root when on the
	way up, and to the end-host when on the way down.		way up, and to the end-host when on the way down.
	Non-constrained uses of RPL are not in scope of this document, and		Non-constrained uses of RPL are not in scope of this document, and
	applicability statements for those uses MAY provide different advice,		applicability statements for those uses may provide different advice,
	E.g. [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].		E.g. [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
	In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is		In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is
	much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the		much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the
	connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the		connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the
	root node.		root node.
	The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will		The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will
	receive a DAO about that node from the 6LR immediately above that		receive a DAO about that node from the 6LR immediately above that
	non-RPL aware node. This means that the non-storing mode case can		non-RPL aware node. This means that the non-storing mode case can
	skipping to change at page 8, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 37 ¶
	In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-		In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-
	RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise		RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise
	an IPv6-in-IPv6 and RPI compression headers. The use of the IPv6-in-		an IPv6-in-IPv6 and RPI compression headers. The use of the IPv6-in-
	IPv6 header is MANDATORY in this case, and it SHOULD be compressed		IPv6 header is MANDATORY in this case, and it SHOULD be compressed
	with [RFC8138] section 7.		with [RFC8138] section 7.
	+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+		+--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
	|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 3: Critical IPv6-in-IPv6 (RPI).		Figure 3: IPv6-in-IPv6 (RPI).
	3.3. Updates to RFC 6550: Indicating the new RPI in the DODAG		3.3. Updates to RFC 6550: Indicating the new RPI in the DODAG
	Configuration Option Flag.		Configuration Option Flag.
	In order to avoid a Flag Day caused by lack of interoperation between		In order to avoid a Flag Day caused by lack of interoperation between
	new RPI (0x23) and old RPI (0x63) nodes, this section defines a flag		new RPI (0x23) and old RPI (0x63) nodes, this section defines a flag
	in the DIO Configuration Option, to indicate when then new RPI value		in the DIO Configuration Option, to indicate when then new RPI value
	can be safely used. Without this, there could be a mix of new nodes		can be safely used. Without this, there could be a mix of new nodes
	(which understand 0x23 and 0x63), and old nodes (which understand		(which understand 0x23 and 0x63), and old nodes (which understand
	0x63 only). A new node would not know if it was safe to use 0x23.		0x63 only). A new node would not know if it was safe to use 0x23.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 22 ¶
	The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process		The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process
	is clear, while later examples are more concise.		is clear, while later examples are more concise.
	6. Storing mode		6. Storing mode
	In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender can determine if the		In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender can determine if the
	destination is inside the LLN by looking if the destination address		destination is inside the LLN by looking if the destination address
	is matched by the DIO's Prefix Information Option (PIO) option.		is matched by the DIO's Prefix Information Option (PIO) option.
	The following table itemizes which headers are needed in each of the		The following table (Figure 7) itemizes which headers are needed in
	following scenarios. It indicate if an IPv6-in-IPv6 header MUST be		each of the following scenarios. It indicate if an IPv6-in-IPv6
	inserted, and whether the destination address of the IPv6-in-IPv6		header must be inserted, and whether the destination address of the
	header is the next hop, or the final target address. There are these		IPv6-in-IPv6 header is the next hop, or the final target address.
	possible situations: hop-by-hop necessary (indicated by "hop"), or		There are these possible situations: hop-by-hop necessary (indicated
	final target address possible (indicated by "tgt"). In all cases hop		by "hop"), or final target address possible (indicated by "tgt"). In
	by hop MAY be used rather than the final target address.		all cases hop by hop may be used rather than the final target
			address.
	In cases where no IPv6-in-IPv6 header is needed, the column states as		In cases where no IPv6-in-IPv6 header is needed, the column states as
	"No".		"No".
	In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies		In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies
	inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the		inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the
	RH3 is not needed because it is not used in storing mode.		RH3 is not needed because it is not used in storing mode.
	In each case, 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to		In each case, 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to
	destination. "1 <= i <= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that		destination. "1 <= i <= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that
	skipping to change at page 16, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 14 ¶
	+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+		+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+
	| Interaction between | Use Case |IPv6-in-IPv6| v6-in-v6 dst |		| Interaction between | Use Case |IPv6-in-IPv6| v6-in-v6 dst |
	+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+		+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | Raf to root | No | No |		| | Raf to root | No | No |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | No | No |		| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | No | No |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | root to ~Raf | No | No |		| | root to ~Raf | No | No |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | ~Raf to root | MUST | root |		| | ~Raf to root | must | root |
	+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+		+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | Raf to Int | No | No |		| | Raf to Int | No | No |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf | MUST | tgt (Raf) |		| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf | must | tgt (Raf) |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | ~Raf to Int | MUST | root |		| | ~Raf to Int | must | root |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | Int to ~Raf | MUST | hop |		| | Int to ~Raf | must | hop |
	+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+		+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | Raf to Raf | No | No |		| | Raf to Raf | No | No |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | Raf to ~Raf | No | No |		| | Raf to ~Raf | No | No |
	+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | ~Raf to Raf | MUST | tgt (Raf) |		| | ~Raf to Raf | must | tgt (Raf) |
	+ +--------------+------------+--------------+		+ +--------------+------------+--------------+
	| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop |		| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop |
	+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+		+---------------------+--------------+------------+--------------+
	Figure 7: IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in Storing mode.		Figure 7: Table of IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in Storing mode.
	6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root		6.1. Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
	In this section is described the communication flow in storing mode		In this section is described the communication flow in storing mode
	(SM) between,		(SM) between,
	RPL-aware-leaf to root		RPL-aware-leaf to root
	root to RPL-aware-leaf		root to RPL-aware-leaf
	skipping to change at page 23, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 47 ¶
	Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)		Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6)
	For example, a communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A		For example, a communication flow could be: Internet --> Node A
	root(6LBR) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G		root(6LBR) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G
	The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IPv6-in-IPv6		The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IPv6-in-IPv6
	header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 is addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf,		header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 is addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf,
	leaving the RPI inside.		leaving the RPI inside.
	Note that there is a requirement that the final node be able to		The final node should be able to remove one or more IPv6-in-IPv6
	remove one or more IPv6-in-IPv6 headers which are all addressed to		headers which are all addressed to it. Furhter details about this
	it, mentioned in [I-D.thubert-roll-unaware-leaves] :		are mentioned in [I-D.thubert-roll-unaware-leaves], which specifies
			RPL routing for a 6LN acting as a plain host and not aware of RPL.
	"RPL data packets are often encapsulated using IP in IP. The 6LN
	MUST be able to decapsulate a packet when it is the destination of
	the outer header and process correctly the inner header."
	The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IPv6-in-IPv6 header to		The 6LBR may set the flow label on the inner IPv6-in-IPv6 header to
	zero in order to aid in compression.		zero in order to aid in compression.
	+--------+---------+---------------+---------------+----------------+		+--------+---------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
	| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 |		| Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 |
	| | t | | | |		| | t | | | |
	+--------+---------+---------------+---------------+----------------+		+--------+---------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
	| Insert | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- |		| Insert | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- |
	| ed hea | | IPv6(RPI) | | |		| ed hea | | IPv6(RPI) | | |
	| ders | | | | |		| ders | | | | |
	| Remove | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- |		| Remove | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in- |
	skipping to change at page 30, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 44 ¶
	7. Non Storing mode		7. Non Storing mode
	In Non Storing Mode (Non SM) (fully source routed), the 6LBR (DODAG		In Non Storing Mode (Non SM) (fully source routed), the 6LBR (DODAG
	root) has complete knowledge about the connectivity of all DODAG		root) has complete knowledge about the connectivity of all DODAG
	nodes, and all traffic flows through the root node. Thus, there is		nodes, and all traffic flows through the root node. Thus, there is
	no need for all nodes to know about the existence of non-RPL aware		no need for all nodes to know about the existence of non-RPL aware
	nodes. Only the 6LBR needs to act if compensation is necessary for		nodes. Only the 6LBR needs to act if compensation is necessary for
	non-RPL aware receivers.		non-RPL aware receivers.
	The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the		The following table (Figure 8) summarizes what headers are needed in
	following scenarios, and indicates when the RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6		the following scenarios, and indicates when the RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-
	header are to be inserted. There are these possible situations:		IPv6 header are to be inserted. There are these possible situations:
	target destination address possible (indicated by "tgt"), to a 6LR,		target destination address possible (indicated by "tgt"), to a 6LR,
	to a 6LN or to the root. In cases where no IPv6-in-IPv6 header is		to a 6LN or to the root. In cases where no IPv6-in-IPv6 header is
	needed, the column states as "No".		needed, the column states as "No".
	The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN		The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN
	(Figure 3). In the Figure the (1) indicates a 6tisch case [RFC8180],		(Figure 3). In the Figure the (1) indicates a 6tisch case [RFC8180],
	where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to		where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to
	pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop.		pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop.
	+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| Interaction | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | v6-in-v6 | v6-in-v6 |		| Interaction | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | v6-in-v6 | v6-in-v6 |
	| between | | | | | dst |		| between | | | | | dst |
	+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | No |		| | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | No |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | No |		| Leaf - Root | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | No |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | root to ~Raf |No(1)| Yes | MUST | 6LR |		| | root to ~Raf |No(1)| Yes | must | 6LR |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | MUST | root |		| | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | must | root |
	+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | Raf to Int | Yes | No | MUST | root |		| | Raf to Int | Yes | No | must | root |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf |No(1)| Yes | MUST | tgt |		| Leaf - Internet | Int to Raf |No(1)| Yes | must | tgt |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | MUST | root |		| | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | must | root |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | Int to ~Raf |No(1)| Yes | MUST | 6LR |		| | Int to ~Raf |No(1)| Yes | must | 6LR |
	+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | MUST | root/tgt |		| | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | must | root/tgt |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | MUST | root/6LR |		| | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | must | root/6LR |
	+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ Leaf - Leaf +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | MUST | root/6LN |		| | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | must | root/6LN |
	+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+ +--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | MUST | root/6LR |		| | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | must | root/6LR |
	+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+		+-----------------+--------------+-----+-----+----------+----------+
	(1)-6tisch networks may need the RPI information.		(1)-6tisch networks may need the RPI information.
	Figure 8: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IPv6-in-IPv6		Figure 8: Table that shows headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI,
	encapsulation.		RH3, IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation.
	7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root		7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
	In this section is described the communication flow in Non Storing		In this section is described the communication flow in Non Storing
	Mode (Non-SM) between,		Mode (Non-SM) between,
	RPL-aware-leaf to root		RPL-aware-leaf to root
	root to RPL-aware-leaf		root to RPL-aware-leaf
	skipping to change at page 31, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 31, line 4 ¶
	7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root		7.1. Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root
	In this section is described the communication flow in Non Storing		In this section is described the communication flow in Non Storing
	Mode (Non-SM) between,		Mode (Non-SM) between,
	RPL-aware-leaf to root		RPL-aware-leaf to root
	root to RPL-aware-leaf		root to RPL-aware-leaf
	not-RPL-aware-leaf to root		not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
	root to not-RPL-aware-leaf		root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
	7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root		7.1.1. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
	In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send		In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send
	traffic to the root. The RPI header MUST be included since contains		traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included since it
	the rank information, which is used to avoid/detect loops.		contains the rank information, which is used to avoid/detect loops.
	RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR)		RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR)
	For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->		For example, a communication flow could be: Node F --> Node D -->
	Node B --> Node A (root)		Node B --> Node A (root)
	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 (6LN) to destination (6LBR).		packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR).
	skipping to change at page 33, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 32, line 38 ¶
	--> 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 by the previous 6LR, then the IPv6		but left there. If RPI is left by the previous 6LR, then the IPv6
	node which does not understand the RPI, will ignore it (following		node which does not understand the RPI, will ignore it (following
	RFC8200), thus encapsulation is not necessary. Due the complete		RFC8200), thus encapsulation is not necessary. Due to the complete
	knowledge of the topology at the root, the 6LBR may optionally		knowledge of the topology at the root, the 6LBR may optionally
	address the IPv6-in-IPv6 header to the last 6LR, such that it is		address the IPv6-in-IPv6 header to the last 6LR, such that it is
	removed prior to the IPv6 node. Please see Section 8 for		removed prior to the IPv6 node. Please see Section 8 for
	clarification of use of IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation.		clarification of use of IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation.
	+---------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---------+		+---------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---------+
	| 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 | | | |
	skipping to change at page 40, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 39, line 13 ¶
	packet go through from 6LN to the root.		packet go through from 6LN to the root.
	6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.		6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.
	In this case, "1 <= ia <= m", m is the number of the intermediate		In this case, "1 <= ia <= m", m is the number of the intermediate
	routers (6LR).		routers (6LR).
	This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating		This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating
	node will add a RPI header to the original packet, and send the		node will add a RPI header to the original packet, and send the
	packet upwards.		packet upwards.
	The originating node SHOULD put the RPI into an IPv6-in-IPv6 header		The originating node should put the RPI into an IPv6-in-IPv6 header
	addressed to the root, so that the 6LBR can remove that header. If		addressed to the root, so that the 6LBR can remove that header. If
	it does not, then additional resources are wasted on the way down to		it does not, then additional resources are wasted on the way down to
	carry the useless RPI option.		carry the useless RPI option.
	The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it		The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it
	add an IPv6-in-IPv6 header. It SHOULD be able to remove the RPI, as		add an IPv6-in-IPv6 header. It should be able to remove the RPI, as
	it was contained in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to it.		it was contained in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to it.
	Otherwise, there MAY be a RPI header buried inside the inner IP		Otherwise, there may be a RPI header buried inside the inner IP
	header, which should get ignored.		header, which should get ignored.
	Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially		Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially
	non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario		non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario
	Section 7.1.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR.		Section 7.1.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR.
	+---------+------------+-------+-------------+--------+-------------+		+---------+------------+-------+-------------+--------+-------------+
	| Header | 6LN src | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN dst |		| Header | 6LN src | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN dst |
	| | | a | | | |		| | | a | | | |
	+---------+------------+-------+-------------+--------+-------------+		+---------+------------+-------+-------------+--------+-------------+
	skipping to change at page 41, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 40, line 23 ¶
	Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G		Node B --> Node A (root) --> Node B --> Node E --> Node G
	6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this		6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this
	case, "1 <= ia <= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR)		case, "1 <= ia <= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR)
	6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.		6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination.
	In this case, "1 <= ia <= m", m is the number of the intermediate		In this case, "1 <= ia <= m", m is the number of the intermediate
	routers (6LR).		routers (6LR).
	As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert a RPI (RPI_1) header		As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert a RPI (RPI_1) header
	which MUST be in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root so that		which must be in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root so that
	the 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3		the 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3
	inside a new IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the 6LR_id. The RPI is		inside a new IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the 6LR_id. The RPI is
	optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2).		optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2).
	+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------+		+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------+
	| Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 |		| Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 |
	+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------+		+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------+
	| Inserte | IPv6-in- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- |		| Inserte | IPv6-in- | -- | IPv6-in- | -- | -- |
	| d | IPv6 | | IPv6 (RH3, | | |		| d | IPv6 | | IPv6 (RH3, | | |
	| headers | (RPI1) | | opt RPI_2) | | |		| headers | (RPI1) | | opt RPI_2) | | |
	skipping to change at page 44, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 43, line 49 ¶
	if the leaf is not tolerant of the RPL artifacts. Such an operator		if the leaf is not tolerant of the RPL artifacts. Such an operator
	could otherwise omit this unnecessary header if it was certain of the		could otherwise omit this unnecessary header if it was certain of the
	properties of the leaf.		properties of the leaf.
	As storing mode can not know the final path of the traffic,		As storing mode can not know the final path of the traffic,
	intolerant (that drop packets with RPL artifacts) leaf nodes can not		intolerant (that drop packets with RPL artifacts) leaf nodes can not
	be supported.		be supported.
	9. Operational considerations of introducing 0x23		9. Operational considerations of introducing 0x23
	This section describes the operational considerations		This section describes the operational considerations of introducing
			the new RPI value of 0x23.
	9.1. Has deployment been discussed?
	There are no known multivendor deployments outside of the research
	groups! All known deployments of RPL are in market verticals, with a
	single vendor providing all components. Research groups typically
	are using Contiki, RiotOS, or OpenWSN., and these are easily adapted
	to 0x23 functionality. Compatibility issue of RPL Option type not
	seems to be quite relevant for research groups.
	9.2. Has installation and initial setup been discussed??		Related to the deployment of RPL, there are no known multivendor
			deployments outside of the research groups! All known deployments of
			RPL are in market verticals, with a single vendor providing all
			components. Research groups typically are using Contiki, RiotOS, or
			OpenWSN, and these are easily adapted to 0x23 functionality.
	During bootstrapping the node get the DIO with the information of RPL		During bootstrapping the node get the DIO with the information of RPL
	Option Type and Indicating the new RPI in the DODAG Configuration		Option Type, indicating the new RPI in the DODAG Configuration Option
	Option Flag. The DODAG root is in charge to configure the current		Flag. The DODAG root is in charge to configure the current network
	network to the new value gradually, through DIO messages and when all		to the new value, through DIO messages and when all the nodes are set
	the nodes are set with the new value. The DODAG should change to a		with the new value. The DODAG should change to a new DODAG version.
	new DODAG version. Not able to send data plane messages. Should		In case of rebooting, the node does not remember the RPL Option Type.
	drop the packet. In case of rebooting, the node does not remember		Thus, the DIO is sent with a flag indicating the new RPI value.
	the RPL Option Type. Thus, the DIO is sent with flag indicating the
	new RPI value.
	9.3. Has the migration path been discussed?
	TBD
	9.4. Have the Requirements on other protocols and functional components
	been discussed?
	It allows to send packets to non-RPL nodes, the 0x23?..
	TBD
	9.5. Has the impact on network operation been discussed?
	Missconfiguration in case that a node join.
	TBD
	9.6. Have suggestions for verifying correct operation been discussed?
	TBD
	9.7. Has management interoperability been discussed?
	TBD
	9.8. Are there fault or threshold conditions that should be reported?
	TBD
	9.9. Is configuration discussed?		The migration path to the change from 0x63 to 0x23 in networks that
			accepts both values is changed when the DIO is sent with the flag
			indicating the new RPI value. Namely, it remains at 0x63 until it is
			sure that the network is capable of 0x23, then it abruptly change to
			0x23. This options allows to send packets to non-RPL nodes, which
			should ignore the option and continue processing the packets.
	TBD		In case that a node join to a network that only process 0x63, it
			would produce a flag day as was mentioned previously. Indicating the
			new RPI in the DODAG Configuration Option Flag is a way to avoid the
			flag day in a network. It is recommended that a network process both
			options to enable interoperability.
	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.		[RFCXXXX] represents this document.
	Hex Value Binary Value		Hex Value Binary Value
	act chg rest Description Reference		act chg rest Description Reference
	skipping to change at page 48, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 46, line 27 ¶
	into every node having a tunnel with every other node. It would		into every node having a tunnel with every other node. It would
	provide a small amount of origin address authentication at a very		provide a small amount of origin address authentication at a very
	high cost; doing BCP38 at every node (linking layer-3 addresses to		high cost; doing BCP38 at every node (linking layer-3 addresses to
	layer-2 addresses, and to already present layer-2 cryptographic		layer-2 addresses, and to already present layer-2 cryptographic
	mechanisms) would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment		mechanisms) would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment
	where hostile nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN.		where hostile nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN.
	The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways		The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways
	with an IPv6-in-IPv6 header to add the needed RH3 header. As such,		with an IPv6-in-IPv6 header to add the needed RH3 header. As such,
	the attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it		the attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it
	reaches the end host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host SHOULD		reaches the end host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host should
	be suspicious about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have		be suspicious about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have
	not yet been processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header.		not yet been processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header.
	In addition, the LLN will likely use [RFC8138] to compress the IPv6-		In addition, the LLN will likely use [RFC8138] to compress the IPv6-
	in-IPv6 and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the RPL-root		in-IPv6 and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the RPL-root
	will see the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the packet		will see the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the packet
	if the RH3 header has not been completely consumed. A consumed		if the RH3 header has not been completely consumed. A consumed
	(inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows from one		(inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows from one
	LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per the		LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per the
	discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be removed.		discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be removed.
	skipping to change at page 49, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 47, line 26 ¶
	that analysis.		that analysis.
	Nodes within the LLN can use the IPv6-in-IPv6 mechanism to mount an		Nodes within the LLN can use the IPv6-in-IPv6 mechanism to mount an
	attack on another part of the LLN, while disguising the origin of the		attack on another part of the LLN, while disguising the origin of the
	attack. The mechanism can even be abused to make it appear that the		attack. The mechanism can even be abused to make it appear that the
	attack is coming from outside the LLN, and unless countered, this		attack is coming from outside the LLN, and unless countered, this
	could be used to mount a Distributed Denial Of Service attack upon		could be used to mount a Distributed Denial Of Service attack upon
	nodes elsewhere in the Internet. See [DDOS-KREBS] for an example of		nodes elsewhere in the Internet. See [DDOS-KREBS] for an example of
	such attacks already seen in the real world.		such attacks already seen in the real world.
			If an attack comes from inside of LLN, it can be alleviated with SAVI
			(Source Address Validation Improvement) using [RFC8505] with
			[I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd]. The attacker will not be able to source with
			an address that is not registered, and the registration checks for
			topological correctness. Notice that there is an L2 authentication
			in most of the cases. If an attack comes from outside LLN IPv6-in-
			IPv6 can be used to hide inner routing headers, but RH3 is protected
			by its definition.
	Nodes outside of the LLN will need to pass IPv6-in-IPv6 traffic		Nodes outside of the LLN will need to pass IPv6-in-IPv6 traffic
	through the RPL root to perform this attack. To counter, the RPL		through the RPL root to perform this attack. To counter, the RPL
	root SHOULD either restrict ingress of IPv6-in-IPv6 packets (the		root SHOULD either restrict ingress of IPv6-in-IPv6 packets (the
	simpler solution), or it SHOULD do a deep packet inspection wherein		simpler solution), or it SHOULD do a deep packet inspection wherein
	it walks the IP header extension chain until it can inspect the		it walks the IP header extension chain until it can inspect the
	upper-layer-payload as described in [RFC7045]. In particular, the		upper-layer-payload as described in [RFC7045]. In particular, the
	RPL root SHOULD do BCP38 ([RFC2827]) processing on the source		RPL root SHOULD do BCP38 ([RFC2827]) processing on the source
	addresses of all IP headers that it examines in both directions.		addresses of all IP headers that it examines in both directions.
	Note: there are some situations where a prefix will spread across		Note: there are some situations where a prefix will spread across
	skipping to change at page 49, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 48, line 25 ¶
	Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the review,		Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the review,
	feedback, and comments of (alphabetical order): Robert Cragie, Simon		feedback, and comments of (alphabetical order): Robert Cragie, Simon
	Duquennoy, Ralph Droms, Cenk Guendogan, Rahul Jadhav, Matthias		Duquennoy, Ralph Droms, Cenk Guendogan, Rahul Jadhav, Matthias
	Kovatsch, Peter van der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana and Thomas Watteyne.		Kovatsch, Peter van der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana and Thomas Watteyne.
	13. References		13. References
	13.1. Normative References		13.1. Normative References
	[I-D.thubert-roll-unaware-leaves]
	Thubert, P., "Routing for RPL Leaves", draft-thubert-roll-
	unaware-leaves-06 (work in progress), November 2018.
	[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>.
	[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>.
	skipping to change at page 51, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 49, line 32 ¶
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
	13.2. Informative References		13.2. Informative References
	[DDOS-KREBS]		[DDOS-KREBS]
	Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by		Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by
	>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-ap-nd]
			Thubert, P., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
			"Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and
			Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-11 (work in
			progress), February 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]		[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
	Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6		Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6
	Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-10 (work		Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-11 (work
	in progress), January 2019.		in progress), February 2019.
	[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-18 (work in progress), August 2018.		plane-18 (work in progress), August 2018.
	[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-18 (work in progress), January 2019.		keyinfra-19 (work in progress), March 2019.
			[I-D.thubert-roll-unaware-leaves]
			Thubert, P., "Routing for RPL Leaves", draft-thubert-roll-
			unaware-leaves-06 (work in progress), November 2018.
	[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>.
	[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
	Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
	<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>.
	[RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec		[RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec
	Version 2", BCP 146, RFC 5406, DOI 10.17487/RFC5406,		Version 2", BCP 146, RFC 5406, DOI 10.17487/RFC5406,
	February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5406>.		February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5406>.
	skipping to change at page 52, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 51, line 10 ¶
	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>.
	[RFC8180] Vilajosana, X., Ed., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal		[RFC8180] Vilajosana, X., Ed., Pister, K., and T. Watteyne, "Minimal
	IPv6 over the TSCH Mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH)		IPv6 over the TSCH Mode of IEEE 802.15.4e (6TiSCH)
	Configuration", BCP 210, RFC 8180, DOI 10.17487/RFC8180,		Configuration", BCP 210, RFC 8180, DOI 10.17487/RFC8180,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8180>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8180>.
			[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>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Maria Ines Robles		Maria Ines Robles
	Aalto University		Aalto University
	Innopoli		Innopoli
	Espoo 02150		Espoo 02150
	Finland		Finland
	Email: mariainesrobles@gmail.com		Email: mariainesrobles@gmail.com
End of changes. 66 change blocks.
	163 lines changed or deleted		138 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/