< draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-30.txt		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-31.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: December 27, 2019 P. Thubert		Expires: January 5, 2020 P. Thubert
	Cisco		Cisco
	June 25, 2019		July 4, 2019
	Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6		Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6
	encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane		encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane
	draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-30		draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-31
	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 RFC6553 (RPL Option Type), RFC6554		enumerates the cases where RFC6553 (RPL Option Type), RFC6554
	(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 December 27, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2020.
	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
	skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶
	8.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL to RUL . . . . . . . 43		8.3.4. Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL to RUL . . . . . . . 43
	9. Operational Considerations of supporting		9. Operational Considerations of supporting
	not-RPL-aware-leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44		not-RPL-aware-leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
	10. Operational considerations of introducing 0x23 . . . . . . . 45		10. Operational considerations of introducing 0x23 . . . . . . . 45
	11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46		11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
	12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47		12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
	13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50		13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
	14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50		14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
	14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50		14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
	14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51		14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
	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. RFC6553		[RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC6553
	[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPL Packet Information or RPI),		[RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPL Packet Information or RPI),
	carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify		carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify
	inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. RFC6554 [RFC6554]		inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. RFC6554 [RFC6554]
	defines the "RPL Source Route Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header		defines the "RPL Source Route Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header
	to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing domain, particularly in		to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing domain, particularly in
	skipping to change at page 11, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 44 ¶
	[RFC8138] section 7 documents how to compress the IPv6-in-IPv6		[RFC8138] section 7 documents how to compress the IPv6-in-IPv6
	header.		header.
	There are potential significant advantages to having a single code		There are potential significant advantages to having a single code
	path that always processes IPv6-in-IPv6 headers with no conditional		path that always processes IPv6-in-IPv6 headers with no conditional
	branches.		branches.
	In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RAL to RUL and RUL to		In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RAL to RUL and RUL to
	RUL comprise an IPv6-in-IPv6 and RPI compression headers. The use of		RUL comprise 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		the IPv6-in-IPv6 header is MANDATORY in this case, and it SHOULD be
	compressed with [RFC8138] section 7. As exemplification of		compressed with [RFC8138] section 7. Figure 5 illustrates the case
	compressing the RPI, section A.1 of [RFC8138] illustrates the case in		in Storing mode where the packet is received from the Internet, then
	Storing mode where the packet is received from the Internet, then the		the root encapsulates the packet to insert the RPI. In that example,
	root encapsulates the packet to insert the RPI. The result is shown		the leaf is not known to support RFC 8138, and the packet is
	in Figure 5.		encapsulated to the 6LR that is the parent and last hop to the final
			destination.
	+-+ ... -+-+-...-+-+-- ... -+-+-+-+- ... -+-+ ... -+-+-+ ... -+-+-+...		+-+ ... -+-+ ... +-+- ... -+-+- .... +-+-+-+ ... +-+-+ ... -+ ... +-...
	|11110001| RPI- | IP-in-IP | NH=1 |11110CPP| Compressed | UDP		|11110001|SRH-6LoRH| RPI- |IPv6-in-IPv6| NH=1 |11110CPP| UDP | UDP
	|Page 1 | 6LoRH | 6LoRH | LOWPAN_IPHC | UDP | UDP header | Payld		|Page 1 |Type1 S=0| 6LoRH | 6LoRH |LOWPAN_IPHC| UDP | hdr |Payld
	+-+ ... -+-+-...-+-+-- ... -+-+-+-+- ... -+-+ ... -+-+-+ ... -+-+-+...		+-+ ... -+-+ ... +-+- ... -+-+-- ...+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+ ... -+ ... +-...
			<-4bytes-> <- RFC 6282 ->
			No RPL artifact
	Figure 5: RPI Inserted by the Root in Storing Mode		Figure 5: RPI Inserted by the Root in Storing Mode
			In Figure 5, the source of the IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is the
			Root, so it is elided in the IPv6-in-IPv6 6LoRH. The destination is
			the parent 6LR of the destination of the inner packet so it cannot be
			elided. It is placed as the single entry in an SRH-6LoRH as the
			first 6LoRH. There is a single entry so the SRH-6LoRH Size is 0. In
			that example, the type is 1 so the 6LR address is compressed to 2
			bytes. It results that the total length of the SRH-6LoRH is 4 bytes.
			Follows the RPI-6LoRH and then the IPv6-in-IPv6 6LoRH. When the
			IPv6-in-IPv6 6LoRH is removed, all the router headers that precede it
			are also removed. The Paging Dispatch [RFC8025] may also be removed
			if there was no previous Page change to a Page other than 0 or 1,
			since the LOWPAN_IPHC is encoded in the same fashion in the default
			Page 0 and in Page 1. The resulting packet to the destination is the
			inner packet compressed with [RFC6282].
	5. Sample/reference topology		5. Sample/reference topology
	A RPL network in general is composed of a 6LBR, Backbone Router		A RPL network in general is composed of a 6LBR, Backbone Router
	(6BBR), 6LR and 6LN as leaf logically organized in a DODAG structure.		(6BBR), 6LR and 6LN as leaf logically organized in a DODAG structure.
	Figure 6 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The		Figure 6 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The
	letters above the nodes are there so that they may be referenced in		letters above the nodes are there so that they may be referenced in
	subsequent sections. In the figure, 6LR represents a full router		subsequent sections. In the figure, 6LR represents a full router
	node. The 6LN is a RPL aware router, or host (as a leaf).		node. The 6LN is a RPL aware router, or host (as a leaf).
	Additionally, for simplification purposes, it is supposed that the		Additionally, for simplification purposes, it is supposed that the
	skipping to change at page 50, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 50, line 46 ¶
	[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>.
	[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion		[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
	Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November		Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
	2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.		2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
			[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
			Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
	[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,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
	[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-		[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
	Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL		Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
	Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,		Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
	skipping to change at page 51, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 51, line 29 ¶
	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>.
			[RFC8025] Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power
			Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch",
			RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November 2016,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8025>.
	[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>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6		[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	14 lines changed or deleted		42 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/