< draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-01.txt   draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-02.txt >
6Lo P. Thubert, Ed. 6Lo P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft cisco Internet-Draft cisco
Intended status: Standards Track June 19, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track August 19, 2014
Expires: December 19, 2014 Expires: February 18, 2015
Requirements for an update to 6LoWPAN ND Requirements for an update to 6LoWPAN ND
draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-01 draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-02
Abstract Abstract
Work presented at the 6TiSCH and 6MAN working groups suggest a number Work presented at the 6lo, 6TiSCH and 6MAN working groups suggest
of enhancements to the 6LoWPAN ND mechanism. This document that enhancements to the 6LoWPAN ND mechanism. This document
elaborates on such requirements. elaborates on such requirements.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Suggested operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. RPL Leaf Support in 6LoWPAN ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. RPL Leaf Support in 6LoWPAN ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. registration Failures Due to Movement . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. registration Failures Due to Movement . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Optimistic registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Proxy registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. RPL root vs. 6LBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. Target Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Suggested Changes to Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. RPL root vs. 6LBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6. Securing the Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. ND Router Advertisement (RA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Requirements Related to Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. ND Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO) . . . . . . 8 4.2. Requirements Related to Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Requirements Related to the Variety of Low-Power Link types 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. Requirements Related to Proxy Operations . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5. Requirements Related to Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.6. Requirements Related to Low-Power devices . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Suggested Changes to Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. ND Router Advertisement (RA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. ND Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO) . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A number of use cases, including the Industrial Internet, require a A number of use cases, including the Industrial Internet, require a
large scale deployment of sensors that can not be realized with wires large scale deployment of sensors that can not be realized with wires
and is only feasible over wireless Low power and Lossy Network (LLN) and is only feasible over wireless Low power and Lossy Network (LLN)
technologies. When simpler hub-and-spoke topologies are not technologies. When simpler hub-and-spoke topologies are not
sufficient for the expected throughput and density, mesh networks sufficient for the expected throughput and density, mesh networks
must be deployed, which implies the concepts of hosts and routers, must be deployed, which implies the concepts of hosts and routers,
whether operated at Layer-2 or Layer-3. whether operated at Layer-2 or Layer-3.
skipping to change at page 2, line 47 skipping to change at page 2, line 56
that supports address assignment specifically for LLNs is 6LoWPAN ND, that supports address assignment specifically for LLNs is 6LoWPAN ND,
the Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks the Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks
[RFC6775]. 6LoWPAN ND was designed as a stand-alone mechanism [RFC6775]. 6LoWPAN ND was designed as a stand-alone mechanism
separately from its IETF routing counterpart, the IPv6 Routing separately from its IETF routing counterpart, the IPv6 Routing
Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks [RFC6550] (RPL), and the Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks [RFC6550] (RPL), and the
interaction between the 2 protocols was not defined. interaction between the 2 protocols was not defined.
The 6TiSCH WG is now considering an architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch- The 6TiSCH WG is now considering an architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-
architecture] whereby a 6LowPAN ND host could connect to the Internet architecture] whereby a 6LowPAN ND host could connect to the Internet
via a RPL Network, but this requires additions to the protocol to via a RPL Network, but this requires additions to the protocol to
support mobility and reachability. support mobility and reachability in a secured and manageable
environment.
At the same time, new work at 6MAN on Efficiency aware IPv6 Neighbor At the same time, new work at 6MAN on Efficiency aware IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Optimizations [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] Discovery Optimizations [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd]
suggests that 6LoWPAN ND can be extended to other types of networks suggests that 6LoWPAN ND can be extended to other types of networks
on top of the Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) for which it was on top of the Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) for which it was
already defined. The value of such extension is especially apparent already defined. The value of such extension is especially apparent
in the case of mobile wireless devices, to reduce the multicast in the case of mobile wireless devices, to reduce the multicast
operations that are related to classical ND ([RFC4861], [RFC4862]) operations that are related to classical ND ([RFC4861], [RFC4862])
and plague the wireless medium. In this context also, there is a and plague the wireless medium. In this context also, there is a
need for additions to the protocol. need for additions to the protocol.
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
[RFC4861], "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862], [RFC4861], "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862],
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919], Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919],
Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks
[RFC6775] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 [RFC6775] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks" [RFC4944]. Networks" [RFC4944].
Additionally, this document uses terminology from 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf- Additionally, this document uses terminology from 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf-
6tisch-terminology] and ROLL [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]. 6tisch-terminology] and ROLL [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology].
3. Suggested operations 3. Overview
The 6TiSCH architecture expects that a 6LoWPAN device can connect as The 6TiSCH architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] expects that
a leaf to a RPL network, where the leaf support is the minimal a 6LoWPAN device can connect as a leaf to a RPL network, where the
functionality to connect as a host to a RPL network without the need leaf support is the minimal functionality to connect as a host to a
to participate to the full routing protocol. The support of leaf can RPL network without the need to participate to the full routing
be implemented as a minor increment to 6LoWPAN ND, with the protocol. The support of leaf can be implemented as a minor
additional capability to carry a sequence number that is used to increment to 6LoWPAN ND, with the additional capability to carry a
track the movements of the device, and optionally some information sequence number that is used to track the movements of the device,
about the RPL topology that this device will join. and optionally some information about the RPL topology that this
device will join.
The scope of the 6TiSCH Architecture is a Backbone Link that The scope of the 6TiSCH Architecture is a Backbone Link that
federates multiple LLNs as a single IPv6 Multi-Link Subnet. Each LLN federates multiple LLNs as a single IPv6 Multi-Link Subnet. Each LLN
in the subnet is anchored at a Backbone Router (6BBR). The Backbone in the subnet is anchored at a Backbone Router (6BBR). The Backbone
Routers interconnect the LLNs over the Backbone Link and emulate that Routers interconnect the LLNs over the Backbone Link and emulate that
the LLN nodes are present on the Backbone by proxy-ND operations. An the LLN nodes are present on the Backbone by proxy-ND operations. An
LLN node can move freely from an LLN Route-Over mesh anchored at a LLN node can move freely from an LLN Route-Over mesh anchored at a
Backbone Router to another anchored at same or a different Backbone Backbone Router to another anchored at same or a different Backbone
Router inside the Multi-Link Subnet and conserve its addresses. Router inside the Multi-Link Subnet and conserve its addresses.
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 34
to that of achieving reachability, and as long as the same node to that of achieving reachability, and as long as the same node
registers the IPv6 address, the protocol is functional. In order to registers the IPv6 address, the protocol is functional. In order to
act as a RPL leaf registration protocol and achieve reachability, the act as a RPL leaf registration protocol and achieve reachability, the
device must use the same TID for all its concurrent registrations, device must use the same TID for all its concurrent registrations,
and registrations with a past TID should be declined. The state for and registrations with a past TID should be declined. The state for
an obsolete registration in the 6LR, as well as the RPL routers on an obsolete registration in the 6LR, as well as the RPL routers on
the way, should be invalidated. This can only be achieved with the the way, should be invalidated. This can only be achieved with the
addition of a new Status in the DAC message, and a new error/clean-up addition of a new Status in the DAC message, and a new error/clean-up
flow in RPL. flow in RPL.
3.3. Optimistic registration 3.3. Proxy registration
The 6BBR provides the capability to defend an address that is owned
by a 6LoWPAN Node, and attract packets to that address, whether it is
done by proxying ND over a MultiLink Subnet, redistributing the
address in a routing protocol or advertising it through an alternate
proxy registration such as the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
[RFC6830] (LISP) or Mobility Support in IPv6 [RFC6275] (MIPv6). In a
LLN, it makes sense to piggyback the request to proxy/defend an
address with its registration.
3.4. Target Registration
In their current incarnations, both 6LoWPAN ND and Efficient ND In their current incarnations, both 6LoWPAN ND and Efficient ND
expect that the address being registered is the source of the NS(ARO) expect that the address being registered is the source of the NS(ARO)
message and thus impose that a Source Link-Layer Address (SLLA) message and thus impose that a Source Link-Layer Address (SLLA)
option be present in the message. In the case of Efficient ND, this option be present in the message. In a mesh scenario where the 6LBR
would cause the root of the RPL network to fake the source address of is physically separated from the 6LoWPAN Node, the 6LBR does not own
the packet when registering the leaf node to the 6BBR. . the address being registered. This suggests that [I-D.chakrabarti-
nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] should evolve to register the Target of
the NS message as opposed to the Source Address. From another
perspective, it may happen, in the use case of a Star topology, that
the 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBR are effectively collapsed and should support
6LoWPAN ND clients. The convergence of efficient ND and 6LoWPAN ND
into a single protocol is thus highly desirable.
In any case, as long as the DAD process is not complete for the In any case, as long as the DAD process is not complete for the
address used as source of the packet, it is a bad practice to address used as source of the packet, it is against the current
advertise the SLLA, since this may corrupt the ND cache of the practice to advertise the SLLA, since this may corrupt the ND cache
destination node, as discussed in the Optimistic DAD specification of the destination node, as discussed in the Optimistic DAD
[RFC4429] regarding the TENTATIVE state. specification [RFC4429] with regards to the TENTATIVE state.
This may look like a chicken and an egg problem, but in fact 6LoWPAN This may look like a chicken and an egg problem, but in fact 6LoWPAN
ND acknowledges that the Link-Local Address that is based on an ND acknowledges that the Link-Local Address that is based on an
EUI-64 address of a LLN node may be autoconfigured without the need EUI-64 address of a LLN node may be autoconfigured without the need
for DAD. It results that the node could use that address as source for DAD. It results that a node could use that Address as source,
to register all the addresses that are expected to be reachable with an SSLA option in the message if required, to register any other
through RPL, meaning either Global or Unique-Local Addresses. addresses, either Global or Unique-Local Addresses, which would be
indicated in the Target.
The suggested change is to register the target of the NS message, and The suggested change is to register the target of the NS message, and
use Target Link-Layer Address (TLLA) in the NS as opposed to the SLLA use Target Link-Layer Address (TLLA) in the NS as opposed to the SLLA
in order to install a Neighbor Cache Entry. This would apply to both in order to install a Neighbor Cache Entry. This would apply to both
Efficient ND and 6LoWPAN ND in a very same manner, with the caveat Efficient ND and 6LoWPAN ND in a very same manner, with the caveat
that depending on the nature of the link between the 6LBR and the that depending on the nature of the link between the 6LBR and the
6BBR, the 6LBR may resort to classical ND or DHCPv6 to obtain the 6BBR, the 6LBR may resort to classical ND or DHCPv6 to obtain the
address that it uses to source the NS registration messages, whether address that it uses to source the NS registration messages, whether
for itself or on behalf of LLN nodes. for itself or on behalf of LLN nodes.
3.4. RPL root vs. 6LBR 3.5. RPL root vs. 6LBR
6LoWPAN ND is unclear on how the 6LBR is discovered, and how the 6LoWPAN ND is unclear on how the 6LBR is discovered, and how the
liveliness of the 6LBR is asserted over time. On the other hand, the liveliness of the 6LBR is asserted over time. On the other hand, the
discovery and liveliness of the RPL root are obtained through the RPL discovery and liveliness of the RPL root are obtained through the RPL
protocol. protocol.
When 6LoWPAN ND is coupled with RPL, it makes sense to collocate the When 6LoWPAN ND is coupled with RPL, it makes sense to collocate the
6LBR functionality and that of the RPL root. The DAR/DAC exchange 6LBR functionality and that of the RPL root. The DAR/DAC exchange
becomes a preamble to the DAO messages that are used from then on to becomes a preamble to the DAO messages that are used from then on to
reconfirm the registration, thus eliminating a duplication of reconfirm the registration, thus eliminating a duplication of
functionality between DAO and DAR messages. functionality between DAO and DAR messages.
4. Suggested Changes to Protocol Elements 3.6. Securing the Registration
A typical attack against IPv6 ND is address spoofing, whereby a rogue
node claims the IPv6 Address of another node in and hijacks its
traffic.
4.1. ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971] is designed to protect
each individual ND lookup/advertisement in a peer to peer model where
each lookup may be between different parties. This is not the case
in a 6LoWPAN ND LLN where, as illustrated in Figure 2, the 6LBR
terminates all the flows and may store security information for later
validation.
Additionally SEND requires considerably enlarged ND messages to carry
cryptographic material, and requires that each protected address is
generated cryptographically, which implies the computation of a
different key for each Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA).
Once an Address is registered, the 6LBR maintains a state for that
Address and is in position to bind securely the first registration
with the Node that placed it, whether the Address is CGA or not. It
should thus be possible to protect the ownership of all the addresses
of a 6LoWPAN Node with a single key, and there should not be a need
to carry the cryptographic material more than once to the 6LBR.
4. Requirements
4.1. Requirements Related to Mobility
Due to the nature of LLN networks, even a fixed 6LoWPAN Node may
change its point of attachment (a 6LR) and may not be able to notify
the previous 6LR that it has disconnected. It results that the
previous 6LR may still attract traffic that it cannot deliver. When
the 6LR changes, there is thus a need to identify stale states and
restore reachability timely.
Upon a change of point of attachment, connectivity via a new 6LR MUST
be restored timely without the need to de-register from the previous
6LR.
For that purpose, the protocol MUST enable to differentiate multiple
registrations from a same 6LoWPAN Node from two different 6LoWPAN
Nodes claiming a same address.
This information MUST be passed from the 6LR to the 6LBR, and the
6LBR SHOULD be able to clean up the stale state asynchronously in the
previous 6LR.
A 6LoWPAN Node SHOULD also be capable to register a same Address to
multiple 6LRs, and this, concurrently.
4.2. Requirements Related to Routing Protocols
The point of attachment of a 6LoWPAN Node may be a 6LR in an LLN
mesh. An LLN route-over mesh is typically based on RPL, which is the
routing protocol that was defined at the IETF for this particular
purpose. It derives that in this scenario, the 6LR would classically
support RPL. One goal is that a 6LoWPAN Node attached via ND to a
RPL-capable 6LR would not need to participate to the RPL protocol to
obtain reachability via the 6LR. An additional goal would be to
obtain reachability via other routing protocols through a same ND-
based abstraction.
The ND registration method SHOULD be extended in such a fashion that
the 6LR MAY advertise the Address of a 6LoWPAN Node over RPL and
obtain reachability to that Address over the RPL domain.
The Address Registration Option used in the ND registration SHOULD be
extended to carry enough information to generate a DAO message as
specified in [RFC6550] section 6.4, in particular the capability to
compute a DAOSequence and, as an option, a RPLInstanceID.
Depending on their applicability to LLNs, other RPLInstanceID mesh/
MANET protocols MAY be considered as well.
4.3. Requirements Related to the Variety of Low-Power Link types
6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775] was defined with a focus on IEEE802.15.4 and in
particular the capability to derive a unique Identifier from a
globally unique MAC-64 address. At this point, the 6lo Working Group
is extending the 6LoWPAN Header Compression (HC) [RFC6282] technique
to other link types ITU-T G.9959 [I-D.brandt-6man-lowpanz], Master-
Slave/Token-Passing [I-D.ietf-6man-6lobac], DECT Ultra Low Energy
[I-D.mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule], Near Field Communication [I-D
.hong-6lo-ipv6-over-nfc], as well as IEEE1901.2 Narrowband Powerline
Communication Networks [I-D.popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-over-
ieee19012-networks] and BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy [I-D.ietf-6lo-btle].
The support of the registration mechanism SHOULD be extended to more
LLN links, matching at least the links that are considered by 6lo as
well as other RPLInstanceID Low-Power links such as Low-Power Wi-Fi.
As part of this extension, a mechanism to compute a unique Identifier
should be provided, with the capability to form a Link-Local Address
that can not be a duplicate. The Identifier SHOULD be unique at
least to the domain where an Address formed by this device may be
advertised through ND mechanisms.
The Address Registration Option used in the ND registration SHOULD be
extended to carry the relevant forms of unique Identifier.
4.4. Requirements Related to Proxy Operations
The registration mechanism SHOULD enable a third party to proxy
register an Address on behalf of a 6LoWPAN node that may be sleeping
or located deeper in an LLN mesh.
4.5. Requirements Related to Security
In order to guarantee the operations of the 6LoWPAN ND flows, the
spoofing of the 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBRs roles should be avoided. Once a
node successfully registers an address, 6LoWPAN ND should provide the
means to protect that ownership even if the node is sleeping. In
particular, the 6LR and the 6LBR then should be able to verify
whether a subsequent registration for a same Address comes from a
same node or is a duplicate.
6LoWPAN ND SHOULD provide a mechanism for the 6LR, 6LBR and 6BBR to
authenticate and authorize one another for their respective roles, as
well as with the 6LoWPAN Node for the role of 6LR.
6LoWPAN ND SHOULD provide a mechanism for the 6LR and the 6LBR to
validate whether a new registration corresponds to a same 6LoWPAN
Node, and, if not, determine the rightful owner, and deny or clean-up
the registration that is deemed in excess.
4.6. Requirements Related to Low-Power devices
The ND registration method is designed to save energy on Low-Power
devices, and in particular enable duty-cycled devices that are
sleeping most of the time and not capable to defend their own
Addresses against always-on devices.
The registration mechanism SHOULD be applicable to a Low-Power device
regardless of the link type, and enable a 6BBR to operate as a proxy
to defend the registered Addresses on its behalf.
5. Suggested Changes to Protocol Elements
5.1. ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS)
The NS message used for registration should use a source address that The NS message used for registration should use a source address that
respects the rules in [RFC6775], [RFC4861], and [RFC4429] for DAD. respects the rules in [RFC6775], [RFC4861], and [RFC4429] for DAD.
The SLLA Option may be present but only if the address passed DAD, The SLLA Option may be present but only if the address passed DAD,
and it is used to allow the 6LR to respond as opposed to as a and it is used to allow the 6LR to respond as opposed to as a
registration mechanism. registration mechanism.
The address that is being registered is the target address in the NS The address that is being registered is the target address in the NS
message and the TLLA Option must be present. message and the TLLA Option must be present.
4.2. ND Router Advertisement (RA) 5.2. ND Router Advertisement (RA)
[I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] adds an 'E' bit in the [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] adds an 'E' bit in the
Router Advertisement flag, as well as a new Registrar Address Option Router Advertisement flag, as well as a new Registrar Address Option
(RAO). These fields are probably pertinent to LLNs inclusion into a (RAO). These fields are probably pertinent to LLNs inclusion into a
revised 6LoWPAN ND should be studied. revised 6LoWPAN ND should be studied.
There is some amount of duplication between the options in the RPL There is some amount of duplication between the options in the RPL
DIO [RFC6550] and the options in the ND RA messages. At the same DIO [RFC6550] and the options in the ND RA messages. At the same
time, there are a number of options, including the 6LoWPAN Context time, there are a number of options, including the 6LoWPAN Context
Option (6CO) [RFC6775], the MTU and the SLLA Options [RFC4861] that Option (6CO) [RFC6775], the MTU and the SLLA Options [RFC4861] that
skipping to change at page 7, line 53 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
are useful for a joining node, the recommendation would be to are useful for a joining node, the recommendation would be to
associate the RA messages to the join beacon, and make them rare when associate the RA messages to the join beacon, and make them rare when
the network is stable. On the other hand, the DIO message is to be the network is stable. On the other hand, the DIO message is to be
used as the propagated heartbeat of the RPL network and provide the used as the propagated heartbeat of the RPL network and provide the
sense of time and liveliness. sense of time and liveliness.
RAs should also be issued and the information therein propagated when RAs should also be issued and the information therein propagated when
a change occurs in the information therein, such as a router or a a change occurs in the information therein, such as a router or a
prefix lifetime. prefix lifetime.
4.3. RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) 5.3. RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO)
If the RPL root serves as 6LBR, it makes sense to add at least a bit If the RPL root serves as 6LBR, it makes sense to add at least a bit
of information in the DIO to signal so. A Registrar Address Option of information in the DIO to signal so. A Registrar Address Option
(RAO) may also be considered for addition. (RAO) may also be considered for addition.
4.4. ND Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO) 5.4. ND Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO)
This option is designed to be used with standard NS and NA messages This option is designed to be used with standard NS and NA messages
between backbone Routers as well as between nodes and 6LRs over the between backbone Routers as well as between nodes and 6LRs over the
LLN and between the 6LBR and the 6BBR over whatever IP link they use LLN and between the 6LBR and the 6BBR over whatever IP link they use
to communicate. to communicate.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Status | RPLInstanceID | | Type | Length | Status | RPLInstanceID |
skipping to change at page 8, line 47 skipping to change at page 12, line 19
P: One bit flag. Indicates that the address is to be redistributed P: One bit flag. Indicates that the address is to be redistributed
to obtain reachability, e.g. into the RPL protocol, or for ND to obtain reachability, e.g. into the RPL protocol, or for ND
proxy operation. proxy operation.
N: One bit flag. Set if the device moved. If not set, the 6BBR will N: One bit flag. Set if the device moved. If not set, the 6BBR will
refrain from sending gratuitous NA(O) or other form of distributed refrain from sending gratuitous NA(O) or other form of distributed
ND cache clean-up over the backbone. For instance, the flag ND cache clean-up over the backbone. For instance, the flag
should be reset after the DAD operation upon address formation. should be reset after the DAD operation upon address formation.
5. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification expects that the link layer is sufficiently This specification expects that the link layer is sufficiently
protected, either by means of physical or IP security for the protected, either by means of physical or IP security for the
Backbone Link or MAC sublayer cryptography. In particular, it is Backbone Link or MAC sublayer cryptography. In particular, it is
expected that the LLN MAC provides secure unicast to/from the expected that the LLN MAC provides secure unicast to/from the
Backbone Router and secure broadcast from the Backbone Router in a Backbone Router and secure broadcast from the Backbone Router in a
way that prevents tempering with or replaying the RA messages. way that prevents tempering with or replaying the RA messages.
The use of EUI-64 for forming the Interface ID in the link local The use of EUI-64 for forming the Interface ID in the link local
address prevents the usage of Secure ND ([RFC3971] and [RFC3972]) and address prevents the usage of Secure ND ([RFC3971] and [RFC3972]) and
address privacy techniques. Considering the envisioned deployments address privacy techniques. Considering the envisioned deployments
and the MAC layer security applied, this is not considered an issue and the MAC layer security applied, this is not considered an issue
at this time. It is envisioned that the device could form a single at this time. It is envisioned that the device could form a single
CGA-based Unique Interface ID (CUID) to securely bind all of its CGA-based Unique Interface ID (CUID) to securely bind all of its
addresses. The CUID would be used as Unique Interface Identifier in addresses. The CUID would be used as Unique Interface Identifier in
the ARO option and the Secure ND procedures would be changed to use the ARO option and the Secure ND procedures would be changed to use
it as opposed to the source IPv6 address. it as opposed to the source IPv6 address.
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
A new type is requested for an ND option. A new type is requested for an ND option.
7. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
Samita, Erik, JP, Eric, Thomas, you will all recognize your influence Samita, Erik, JP, Eric, Thomas, you will all recognize your influence
in this work... in this work...
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. 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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version [RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 29
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T. and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T. and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J. and D. Culler, [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J. and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 [RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
September 2011. September 2011.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP. and R. Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP. and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E. and C. Bormann, [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E. and C. Bormann,
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
November 2012. November 2012.
8.2. Informative References [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
2013.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.brandt-6man-lowpanz]
Brandt, A. and J. Buron, "Transmission of IPv6 packets
over ITU-T G.9959 Networks", Internet-Draft draft-brandt-
6man-lowpanz-02, June 2013.
[I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd]
Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., Thubert, P. and M. Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., Thubert, P. and M.
Wasserman, "Wired and Wireless IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Wasserman, "Wired and Wireless IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
Optimizations", Internet-Draft draft-chakrabarti-nordmark- Optimizations", Internet-Draft draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-
6man-efficient-nd-04, October 2013. 6man-efficient-nd-04, October 2013.
[I-D.hong-6lo-ipv6-over-nfc]
Hong, Y., Choi, Y., Youn, J., Kim, D. and J. Choi,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field
Communication", Internet-Draft draft-hong-6lo-ipv6-over-
nfc-01, August 2014.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-btle]
Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z. and C. Gomez, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-
6lo-btle-02, June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-6man-6lobac]
Lynn, K., Martocci, J., Neilson, C. and S. Donaldson,
"Transmission of IPv6 over MS/TP Networks", Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-6man-6lobac-01, March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and R. Assimiti, "An Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and R. Assimiti, "An
Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE
802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch- 802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch-
architecture-01, February 2014. architecture-01, February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology] [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology]
Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and Q. Wang, Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and Q. Wang,
"Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE "Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE
802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch- 802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch-
terminology-00, November 2013. terminology-00, November 2013.
[I-D.ietf-roll-terminology] [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]
Vasseur, J., "Terms used in Routing for Low power And Vasseur, J., "Terms used in Routing for Low power And
Lossy Networks", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll- Lossy Networks", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll-
terminology-13, October 2013. terminology-13, October 2013.
[I-D.mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule]
Mariager, P., Petersen, J. and Z. Shelby, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy", Internet-Draft
draft-mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule-03, July 2013.
[I-D.popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-over-ieee19012-networks]
Popa, D. and J. Hui, "6LoPLC: Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1901.2 Narrowband Powerline Communication
Networks", Internet-Draft draft-popa-6lo-6loplc-ipv6-over-
ieee19012-networks-00, March 2014.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A. and P. [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A. and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005. RFC 3963, January 2005.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B. and P. Nikander, "SEcure [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B. and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, March 2005. RFC 3972, March 2005.
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 256 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/