| < draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt | draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-07.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6MAN P. Thubert, Ed. | 6MAN P. Thubert, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track 1 June 2020 | Intended status: Standards Track 24 November 2020 | |||
| Expires: 3 December 2020 | Expires: 28 May 2021 | |||
| IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks | IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks | |||
| draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 | draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-07 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes how the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and | This document describes how the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and | |||
| Wireless ND (WiND) can be applied on various abstractions of wireless | Wireless ND (WiND) can be applied on various abstractions of wireless | |||
| media. | media. | |||
| 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 | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 32 ¶ | |||
| 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 3 December 2020. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 May 2021. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 15 ¶ | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. ND-Classic, Wireless ND and ND-Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3. ND-Classic, Wireless ND and ND-Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4. IP Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4. IP Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 4.1. Physical Broadcast Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1. Physical Broadcast Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 4.2. Link Layer Broadcast Emulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.2. Link Layer Broadcast Emulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4.3. Mapping the IPv6 link Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.3. Mapping the IPv6 link Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 4.4. Mapping the IPv6 subnet Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.4. Mapping the IPv6 subnet Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 5. Wireless Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5. Wireless Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 5.1. Introduction to Wireless ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.1. Introduction to Wireless ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 5.2. links and Link-Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 5.2. links and Link-Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 5.3. subnets and Global Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 5.3. subnets and Global Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 6. WiND Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 6. WiND Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 6.1. Case of LPWANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6.1. Case of LPWANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 6.2. Case of Infrastructure BSS and ESS . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6.2. Case of Infrastructure BSS and ESS . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 6.3. Case of Mesh Under Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 6.3. Case of Mesh Under Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 6.4. Case of DMB radios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 6.4. Case of DMB radios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 6.4.1. Using ND-Classic only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 6.4.1. Using ND-Classic only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 6.4.2. Using Wireless ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 6.4.2. Using Wireless ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 39 ¶ | |||
| RS: Router Solicitation | RS: Router Solicitation | |||
| VLAN: Virtual Local Area Network | VLAN: Virtual Local Area Network | |||
| WiND: Wireless Neighbor Discovery | WiND: Wireless Neighbor Discovery | |||
| WLAN: Wireless Local Area Network | WLAN: Wireless Local Area Network | |||
| WPAN: Wireless Personal Area Network | WPAN: Wireless Personal Area Network | |||
| 3. ND-Classic, Wireless ND and ND-Proxies | 3. ND-Classic, Wireless ND and ND-Proxies | |||
| The ND-Classic Neighbor Solicitation (NS) [RFC4861] message is used | The ND-Classic Neighbor Solicitation (NS) [RFC4861] message is used | |||
| as a multicast IP packet for Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate | as a multicast IP packet for Address Resolution (AR) and Duplicate | |||
| Address Setection (DAD) [RFC4862]. In those cases, the NS message is | Address Detection (DAD) [RFC4862]. In those cases, the NS message is | |||
| sent at the Network Layer to a Solicited-Node Multicast Address | sent at the Network Layer to a Solicited-Node Multicast Address | |||
| (SNMA) [RFC4291] and should in theory only reach a very small group | (SNMA) [RFC4291] and should in theory only reach a very small group | |||
| of nodes. Those messages are generated individually for each | of nodes. It is intended for one Target, that may or may not be | |||
| address, and may occur when a node joins the network, moves, or wakes | present in the network, but it is often turned into a MAC-Layer | |||
| up and reconnects to the network. | broadcast and effectively reaches most of the nodes on link. | |||
| DAD was designed for the efficient broadcast operation of Ethernet. | DAD was designed for the efficient broadcast operation of Ethernet. | |||
| Experiments show that DAD often fails to discover the duplication of | Experiments show that DAD often fails to discover the duplication of | |||
| IPv6 addresses in large wireless access networks [DAD ISSUES]. In | IPv6 addresses in large wireless access networks [DAD ISSUES]. In | |||
| practice, IPv6 addresses very rarely conflict, not because the | practice, IPv6 addresses very rarely conflict, not because the | |||
| address duplications are detected and resolved by the DAD operation, | address duplications are detected and resolved by the DAD operation, | |||
| but thanks to the entropy of the 64-bit Interface IDs (IIDs) that | but thanks to the entropy of the 64-bit Interface IDs (IIDs) that | |||
| makes a collision quasi-impossible for randomized IIDs. | makes a collision quasi-impossible for randomized IIDs. | |||
| ND-Classic Address Lookups and DADs over a very large fabric can | Multicast NS transmissions may occur when a node joins the network, | |||
| generate hundreds of broadcasts per second. If the broadcasts were | moves, or wakes up and reconnects to the network. Over a very large | |||
| blindly copied over Wi-Fi, the ND-related multicast traffic could | fabric, this can generate hundreds of broadcasts per second. If the | |||
| consume enough bandwidth to cause a substantial degradation to the | broadcasts were blindly copied over Wi-Fi, the MAC-layer broadcast | |||
| unicast service [MCAST EFFICIENCY]. To protect their bandwidth, some | traffic associated to ND IP-layer multicast could consume enough | |||
| networks throttle ND-related broadcasts, which reduces the capability | bandwidth to cause a substantial degradation to the unicast service | |||
| for the ND protocol to operate as expected. | [MCAST EFFICIENCY]. To protect their bandwidth, some networks | |||
| throttle ND-related broadcasts, which reduces the capability for the | ||||
| ND protocol to operate as expected. | ||||
| This problem can be alleviated by reducing the size of the broadcast | This problem can be alleviated by reducing the size of the broadcast | |||
| domain that encompasses wireless access links. This has been done in | domain that encompasses wireless access links. This has been done in | |||
| the art of IP subnetting by partitioning the subnets and by routing | the art of IP subnetting by partitioning the subnets and by routing | |||
| between them, at the extreme by assigning a /64 prefix to each | between them, at the extreme by assigning a /64 prefix to each | |||
| wireless node (see [RFC8273]). | wireless node (see [RFC8273]). | |||
| Another way to split the broadcast domain within a subnet is to proxy | Another way to split the broadcast domain within a subnet is to proxy | |||
| at the boundary of the wired and wireless domains the Network Layer | at the boundary of the wired and wireless domains the Network Layer | |||
| protocols that rely on Link Layer broadcast operations. For | protocols that rely on Link Layer broadcast operations. [IEEE Std. | |||
| instance, [IEEE Std. 802.11] recommends to deploy proxies for the | 802.11] recommends to deploy proxies for the IPv4 Address Resolution | |||
| IPv4 Address Resolution Protocl (ARP)) and IPv6 Neighbor Discosvery | Protocol (ARP) and IPv6 ND at the APs. This requires the exhaustive | |||
| functions at the Access Points (APs). But proxying ND requires the | list of the IP addresses for which proxying is provided. Forming and | |||
| full list of the IPv6 addresses for which proxying is provided. | maintaining that knowledge a hard problem in the general case of | |||
| Forming and maintaining that knowledge a hard problem in the general | radio connectivity, which keeps changing with movements and | |||
| case of radio connectivity, which keeps changing with movements and | variations in the environment that alter the range of transmissions. | |||
| other variations in the environment. | ||||
| [SAVI] suggests to discover the addresses by snooping the ND-Classic | [SAVI] suggests to discover the addresses by snooping the ND-Classic | |||
| protocol, but that can also be unreliable. An IPv6 address may not | protocol, but that can also be unreliable. An IPv6 address may not | |||
| be discovered immediately due to a packet loss. It may never be | be discovered immediately due to a packet loss. It may never be | |||
| discovered in the case of a "silent" node that is not currently using | discovered in the case of a "silent" node that is not currently using | |||
| one of its addresses, e.g., a printer that waits in wake-on-lan | one of its addresses, e.g., a printer that waits in wake-on-lan | |||
| state. A change of anchor, e.g. due to a movement, may be missed or | state. A change of anchor, e.g. due to a movement, may be missed or | |||
| misordered, leading to unreliable connectivity and an incomplete list | misordered, leading to unreliable connectivity and an incomplete list | |||
| of IPv6 addresses to be proxied for. | of addresses. | |||
| Wireless ND (WiND) introduces a new approach to IPv6 Neighbor | Wireless ND (WiND) introduces a new approach to IPv6 Neighbor | |||
| Discovery that is designed to apply to the WLANs and LoWPANs types of | Discovery that is designed to apply to the WLANs and LoWPANs types of | |||
| networks, as well as other Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) networks | networks, as well as other Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) networks | |||
| such as Data-Center overlays. WiND applies routing inside the | such as Data-Center overlays. WiND applies routing inside the | |||
| subnets, which enables to form potentially large MLSNs without | subnets, which enables to form potentially large MLSNs without | |||
| creating a large broadcast domain at the Link Layer. | creating a large broadcast domain at the Link Layer. In a fashion | |||
| similar to a Wi-Fi Association, IPv6 Hosts register their addresses | ||||
| In a fashion similar to a Wi-Fi Association, IPv6 Hosts register | to their serving router(s), using [RFC8505]. With the registration, | |||
| their addresses to their serving router(s), using [RFC8505]. With | the routers have a complete knowledge of the hosts they serve and in | |||
| the registration, the routers have a complete knowledge of the hosts | return, hosts obtain routing services for their registered addresses. | |||
| they serve and in return, hosts obtain routing services for their | The registration is abstract to the routing service, and it can be | |||
| registered addresses. The registration is abstract to the routing | protected to prevent impersonation attacks with [RFC8928]. | |||
| service, and it can be protected to prevent impersonation attacks | ||||
| with [ADDR PROTECT]. | ||||
| The routing service can be a simple reflexion in a Hub-and-Spoke | The routing service can be a simple reflexion in a Hub-and-Spoke | |||
| subnet that emulates an IEEE Std. 802.11 Infrastructure BSS at the | subnet that emulates an IEEE Std. 802.11 Infrastructure BSS at the | |||
| Network Layer. It can also be a full-fledge routing protocol, in | Network Layer. It can also be a full-fledge routing protocol, in | |||
| particular RPL [RFC6550], which is designed to adapt to various LLNs | particular RPL [RFC6550], which is designed to adapt to various LLNs | |||
| such as WLAN and WPAN radio meshes. Finally, the routing service can | such as WLAN and WPAN radio meshes. Finally, the routing service can | |||
| also be an ND proxy that emulates an IEEE Std. 802.11 Infrastructure | also be an ND proxy that emulates an IEEE Std. 802.11 Infrastructure | |||
| ESS at the Network Layer, as specified in the IPv6 Backbone Router | ESS at the Network Layer, as specified in the IPv6 Backbone Router | |||
| [BB ROUTER]. | [RFC8929]. | |||
| On the one hand, WiND avoids the use of broadcast operation for DAD | On the one hand, WiND avoids the use of broadcast operation for DAD | |||
| and AR, and on the other hand, WiND supports use cases where subnet | and AR, and on the other hand, WiND supports use cases where subnet | |||
| and Link Layer domains are not congruent, which is common in wireless | and Link Layer domains are not congruent, which is common in wireless | |||
| networks unless a specific Link Layer emulation is provided. More | networks unless a specific Link Layer emulation is provided. More | |||
| details on WiND can be found in Section 5.1. | details on WiND can be found in Section 5.1. | |||
| 4. IP Models | 4. IP Models | |||
| 4.1. Physical Broadcast Domain | 4.1. Physical Broadcast Domain | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 50 ¶ | |||
| In some instances of WLANs and LoWPANs, a Mesh-Under technology | In some instances of WLANs and LoWPANs, a Mesh-Under technology | |||
| (e.g., a IEEE Std. 802.11s or IEEE Std. 802.15.10) provides meshing | (e.g., a IEEE Std. 802.11s or IEEE Std. 802.15.10) provides meshing | |||
| services that are similar to bridging, and the broadcast domain is | services that are similar to bridging, and the broadcast domain is | |||
| well-defined by the membership of the mesh. Mesh-Under emulates a | well-defined by the membership of the mesh. Mesh-Under emulates a | |||
| broadcast domain by flooding the broadcast packets at the Link Layer. | broadcast domain by flooding the broadcast packets at the Link Layer. | |||
| When operating on a single frequency, this operation is known to | When operating on a single frequency, this operation is known to | |||
| interfere with itself, and requires inter-frame gaps to dampen the | interfere with itself, and requires inter-frame gaps to dampen the | |||
| collisions, which reduces further the amount of available bandwidth. | collisions, which reduces further the amount of available bandwidth. | |||
| Going down the list of cases above, the cost of a broadcast | As the cost of broadcast transmissions becomes increasingly | |||
| transmissions becomes increasingly expensive, and there is a push to | expensive, there is a push to rethink the upper Layer protocols to | |||
| rethink the upper Layer protocols so as to reduce the depency on | reduce the dependency on broadcast operations. | |||
| broadcast operations. | ||||
| 4.3. Mapping the IPv6 link Abstraction | 4.3. Mapping the IPv6 link Abstraction | |||
| IPv6 defines a concept of Link, link Scope and Link-Local Addresses | IPv6 defines a concept of Link, link Scope and Link-Local Addresses | |||
| (LLA), an LLA being unique and usable only within the Scope of a | (LLA), an LLA being unique and usable only within the Scope of a | |||
| Link. The ND-Classic [RFC4861] DAD [RFC4862] process uses a | Link. The ND-Classic [RFC4861] DAD [RFC4862] process uses a | |||
| multicast transmission to detect a duplicate address, which requires | multicast transmission to detect a duplicate address, which requires | |||
| that the owner of the address is connected to the Link Layer | that the owner of the address is connected to the Link Layer | |||
| broadcast domain of the sender. | broadcast domain of the sender. | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 46 ¶ | |||
| The scope on which the uniqueness of an LLA must be checked is each | The scope on which the uniqueness of an LLA must be checked is each | |||
| new pair of nodes for the duration of their conversation. As long as | new pair of nodes for the duration of their conversation. As long as | |||
| there's no conflict, a node may use the same LLA with multiple peers | there's no conflict, a node may use the same LLA with multiple peers | |||
| but it has to perform DAD again with each new peer. A node may need | but it has to perform DAD again with each new peer. A node may need | |||
| to form a new LLA to talk to a new peer, and multiple LLAs may be | to form a new LLA to talk to a new peer, and multiple LLAs may be | |||
| present in the same radio interface to talk to different peers. In | present in the same radio interface to talk to different peers. In | |||
| practice, each pair of nodes defines a temporary P2P link, which can | practice, each pair of nodes defines a temporary P2P link, which can | |||
| be modeled as a sub-interface of the radio interface. | be modeled as a sub-interface of the radio interface. | |||
| The DAD and AR procedures in ND-Classic expect that a node in a | ||||
| subnet is reachable within the broadcast domain of any other node in | ||||
| the subnet when that other node attempts to form an address that | ||||
| would be a duplicate or attempts to resolve the MAC address of this | ||||
| node. This is why ND is applicable for P2P and transit links, but | ||||
| requires extensions for more complex topologies. | ||||
| 4.4. Mapping the IPv6 subnet Abstraction | 4.4. Mapping the IPv6 subnet Abstraction | |||
| IPv6 also defines the concept of a subnet for Global and Unique Local | IPv6 also defines the concept of a subnet for Global and Unique Local | |||
| Addresses (GLA and ULA). All the addresses in a subnet share the | Addresses (GLA and ULA). All the addresses in a subnet share the | |||
| same prefix, and by extension, a node belongs to a subnet if it has | same prefix, and by extension, a node belongs to a subnet if it has | |||
| with an address in that subnet. | an address that derives from the prefix of the subnet. That address | |||
| must be topologically correct, meaning that it must be installed on | ||||
| an interface that is connected to the subnet. | ||||
| Unless intently replicated in different locations for very specific | Unless intently replicated in different locations for very specific | |||
| purposes, a subnet prefix is unique within a routing system; for | purposes, a subnet prefix is unique within a routing system; for | |||
| ULAs, the routing system is typically a limited domain, whereas for | ULAs, the routing system is typically a limited domain, whereas for | |||
| GLAs, it is the whole Internet. | GLAs, it is the whole Internet. | |||
| For that reason, it is sufficient to validate that an address that is | For that reason, it is sufficient to validate that an address that is | |||
| formed from a subnet prefix is unique within the scope of that subnet | formed from a subnet prefix is unique within the scope of that subnet | |||
| to guarantee that it is globally unique within the whole routing | to guarantee that it is globally unique within the whole routing | |||
| system. Note that a subnet may become partitioned due to the loss of | system. Note that a subnet may become partitioned due to the loss of | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 6 ¶ | |||
| other node directly using ND-Classic. | other node directly using ND-Classic. | |||
| But an IP link and an IP subnet are not always congruent. In the | But an IP link and an IP subnet are not always congruent. In the | |||
| case of a Shared Link, individual subnets may each encompass only a | case of a Shared Link, individual subnets may each encompass only a | |||
| subset of the nodes connected to the link. Conversely, in Route-Over | subset of the nodes connected to the link. Conversely, in Route-Over | |||
| Multi-link subnets (MLSN) [RFC4903], routers federate the links | Multi-link subnets (MLSN) [RFC4903], routers federate the links | |||
| between nodes that belong to the subnet, the subnet is not on-link | between nodes that belong to the subnet, the subnet is not on-link | |||
| and it extends beyond any of the federated links. | and it extends beyond any of the federated links. | |||
| 5. Wireless Neighbor Discovery | 5. Wireless Neighbor Discovery | |||
| 5.1. Introduction to Wireless ND | ||||
| The DAD and AR procedures in ND-Classic expect that a node in a | 5.1. Introduction to Wireless ND | |||
| subnet is reachable within the broadcast domain of any other node in | ||||
| the subnet when that other node attempts to form an address that | ||||
| would be a duplicate or attempts to resolve the MAC address of this | ||||
| node. This is why ND is applicable for P2P and transit links, but | ||||
| requires extensions for more complex topologies. | ||||
| WiND [RFC6775][RFC8505][BB ROUTER][ADDR PROTECT] defines a new | WiND [RFC6775][RFC8505][RFC8929][RFC8928] defines a new operation for | |||
| operation for ND that is based on 2 major paradigm changes, proactive | ND that is based on 2 major paradigm changes, proactive address | |||
| address registration by hosts to their attachment routers and routing | registration by hosts to their attachment routers and routing to host | |||
| to host routes (/128) within the subnet. This allows WiND to avoid | routes (/128) within the subnet. This allows WiND to avoid the | |||
| the expectations of transit links and subnet-wide broadcast domains. | expectations of transit links and subnet-wide broadcast domains. | |||
| WiND is agnostic to the method used for Address Assignment, e.g., | WiND is agnostic to the method used for Address Assignment, e.g., | |||
| Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862] or DHCPv6 | Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862] or DHCPv6 | |||
| [RFC8415]. It does not change the IPv6 addressing [RFC4291] or the | [RFC8415]. It does not change the IPv6 addressing [RFC4291] or the | |||
| current practices of assigning prefixes, typically a /64, to a | current practices of assigning prefixes, typically a /64, to a | |||
| subnet. But the DAD operation is performed as a unicast exchange | subnet. But the DAD operation is performed as a unicast exchange | |||
| with a central registrar, using new ND Extended Duplicate Address | with a central registrar, using new ND Extended Duplicate Address | |||
| messages (EDAR and EDAC) [RFC6775][RFC8505]. This modernizes ND for | messages (EDAR and EDAC) [RFC6775][RFC8505]. This modernizes ND for | |||
| application in overlays with Map Resolvers and enables unicast | application in overlays with Map Resolvers and enables unicast | |||
| lookups [UNICAST AR] for addresses registered to the resolver. | lookups [UNICAST AR] for addresses registered to the resolver. | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 47 ¶ | |||
| Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] with [RPL UNAWARE LEAVES]. | Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550] with [RPL UNAWARE LEAVES]. | |||
| WiND also enables to span a subnet over an MLSN that federates edge | WiND also enables to span a subnet over an MLSN that federates edge | |||
| wireless links with a high-speed, typically Ethernet, backbone. This | wireless links with a high-speed, typically Ethernet, backbone. This | |||
| way, nodes can form any address they want and move freely from a | way, nodes can form any address they want and move freely from a | |||
| wireless edge link to another, without renumbering. Backbone Routers | wireless edge link to another, without renumbering. Backbone Routers | |||
| (6BBRs) placed along the wireless edge of the Backbone handle IPv6 | (6BBRs) placed along the wireless edge of the Backbone handle IPv6 | |||
| Neighbor Discovery and forward packets over the backbone on behalf of | Neighbor Discovery and forward packets over the backbone on behalf of | |||
| the registered nodes on the wireless edge. | the registered nodes on the wireless edge. | |||
| For instance, a 6BBR in bridging proxy mode (more in [BB ROUTER]) can | For instance, a 6BBR in bridging proxy mode (more in [RFC8929]) can | |||
| operate as a Layer-3 AP to serve wireless IPv6 hosts that are Wi-Fi | operate as a Layer-3 AP to serve wireless IPv6 hosts that are Wi-Fi | |||
| STAs and maintain the reachability for Global Unicast and Link-LOcal | STAs and maintain the reachability for Global Unicast and Link-LOcal | |||
| Addresses within the federated MLSN. | Addresses within the federated MLSN. | |||
| 5.2. links and Link-Local Addresses | 5.2. links and Link-Local Addresses | |||
| For Link-Local Addresses, DAD is typically performed between | For Link-Local Addresses, DAD is typically performed between | |||
| communicating pairs of nodes and an NCE can be populated with a | communicating pairs of nodes and an NCE can be populated with a | |||
| single unicast exchange. In the case of a bridging proxies, though, | single unicast exchange. In the case of a bridging proxies, though, | |||
| the Link-Local traffic is bridged over the backbone and the DAD must | the Link-Local traffic is bridged over the backbone and the DAD must | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 37 ¶ | |||
| 5.3. subnets and Global Addresses | 5.3. subnets and Global Addresses | |||
| WiND extends ND-Classic for Hub-and-Spoke (e.g., BLE) and Route-Over | WiND extends ND-Classic for Hub-and-Spoke (e.g., BLE) and Route-Over | |||
| (e.g., RPL) Multi-link subnets (MLSNs). | (e.g., RPL) Multi-link subnets (MLSNs). | |||
| In the Hub-and-Spoke case, each Hub-Spoke pair is a distinct IP Link, | In the Hub-and-Spoke case, each Hub-Spoke pair is a distinct IP Link, | |||
| and a subnet can be mapped on a collection of links that are | and a subnet can be mapped on a collection of links that are | |||
| connected to the Hub. The subnet prefix is associated to the Hub. | connected to the Hub. The subnet prefix is associated to the Hub. | |||
| Acting as routers, the Hub advertises the prefix as not-on-link to | Acting as a router, the Hub advertises the prefix as not-on-link to | |||
| the spokes in RA messages Prefix Information Options (PIO). Acting | the spokes in RA messages Prefix Information Options (PIO). Acting | |||
| as hosts, the Spokes autoconfigure addresses from that prefix and | as hosts, the Spokes autoconfigure addresses from that prefix and | |||
| register them to the Hub with a corresponding lifetime. Acting as a | register them to the Hub with a corresponding lifetime. | |||
| registrar, the Hub maintains a binding table of all the registered IP | ||||
| addresses and rejects duplicate registrations, thus ensuring a DAD | Acting as a registrar, the Hub maintains a binding table of all the | |||
| protection for a registered address even if the registering node is | registered IP addresses and rejects duplicate registrations, thus | |||
| sleeping. The Hub also maintains an NCE for the registered addresses | ensuring a DAD protection for a registered address even if the | |||
| and can deliver a packet to any of them during their respective | registering node is sleeping. | |||
| lifetimes. It can be observed that this design builds a form of | ||||
| Network Layer Infrastructure BSS. | The Hub also maintains an NCE for the registered addresses and can | |||
| deliver a packet to any of them during their respective lifetimes. | ||||
| It can be observed that this design builds a form of Network Layer | ||||
| Infrastructure BSS. | ||||
| A Route-Over MLSN is considered as a collection of Hub-and-Spoke | A Route-Over MLSN is considered as a collection of Hub-and-Spoke | |||
| where the Hubs form a connected dominating set of the member nodes of | where the Hubs form a connected dominating set of the member nodes of | |||
| the subnet, and IPv6 routing takes place between the Hubs within the | the subnet, and IPv6 routing takes place between the Hubs within the | |||
| subnet. A single logical registrar is deployed to serve the whole | subnet. A single logical registrar is deployed to serve the whole | |||
| mesh. | mesh. | |||
| The registration in [RFC8505] is abstract to the routing protocol and | The registration in [RFC8505] is abstract to the routing protocol and | |||
| provides enough information to feed a routing protocol such as RPL as | provides enough information to feed a routing protocol such as RPL as | |||
| specified in [RPL UNAWARE LEAVES]. In a degraded mode, all the Hubs | specified in [RPL UNAWARE LEAVES]. In a degraded mode, all the Hubs | |||
| are connected to a same high speed backbone such as an Ethernet | are connected to a same high speed backbone such as an Ethernet | |||
| bridging domain where ND-Classic is operated. In that case, it is | bridging domain where ND-Classic is operated. In that case, it is | |||
| possible to federate the Hub, Spoke and Backbone nodes as a single | possible to federate the Hub, Spoke and Backbone nodes as a single | |||
| subnet, operating ND proxy operations [BB ROUTER] at the Hubs, acting | subnet, operating ND proxy operations [RFC8929] at the Hubs, acting | |||
| as 6BBRs. It can be observed that this latter design builds a form | as 6BBRs. It can be observed that this latter design builds a form | |||
| of Network Layer Infrastructure ESS. | of Network Layer Infrastructure ESS. | |||
| 6. WiND Applicability | 6. WiND Applicability | |||
| WiND applies equally to P2P links, P2MP Hub-and-Spoke, Link Layer | WiND applies equally to P2P links, P2MP Hub-and-Spoke, Link Layer | |||
| Broadcast Domain Emulation such as Mesh-Under and Wi-Fi BSS, and | Broadcast Domain Emulation such as Mesh-Under and Wi-Fi BSS, and | |||
| Route-Over meshes. | Route-Over meshes. | |||
| There is an intersection where link and subnet are congruent and | There is an intersection where link and subnet are congruent and | |||
| where both ND and WiND could apply. These includes P2P, the MAC | where both ND and WiND could apply. These includes P2P, the MAC | |||
| emulation of a PHY broadcast domain, and the particular case of | emulation of a PHY broadcast domain, and the particular case of | |||
| always on, fully overlapping physical radio broadcast domain. But | always on, fully overlapping physical radio broadcast domain. But | |||
| even in those cases where both are possible, WiND is preferable vs. | even in those cases where both are possible, WiND is preferable vs. | |||
| ND because it reduces the need of broadcast. | ND because it reduces the need of broadcast. | |||
| This is discussed in more details in the introduction of [BB ROUTER]. | This is discussed in more details in the introduction of [RFC8929]. | |||
| There are also a number of practical use cases in the wireless world | There are also a number of practical use cases in the wireless world | |||
| where links and subnets are not congruent: | where links and subnets are not congruent: | |||
| * The IEEE Std. 802.11 infrastructure BSS enables one subnet per AP, | * The IEEE Std. 802.11 infrastructure BSS enables one subnet per AP, | |||
| and emulates a broadcast domain at the Link Layer. The | and emulates a broadcast domain at the Link Layer. The | |||
| Infrastructure ESS extends that model over a backbone and | Infrastructure ESS extends that model over a backbone and | |||
| recommends the use of an ND proxy [IEEE Std. 802.11] to | recommends the use of an ND proxy [IEEE Std. 802.11] to | |||
| interoperate with Ethernet-connected nodes. WiND incorporates an | interoperate with Ethernet-connected nodes. WiND incorporates an | |||
| ND proxy to serve that need, which was missing so far. | ND proxy to serve that need, which was missing so far. | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 15 ¶ | |||
| The recommended alternative method is to use the WiND Registration | The recommended alternative method is to use the WiND Registration | |||
| for IPv6 Addresses. This way, the AP exposes its capability to proxy | for IPv6 Addresses. This way, the AP exposes its capability to proxy | |||
| ND to the STA in Router Advertisement messages. In turn, the STA may | ND to the STA in Router Advertisement messages. In turn, the STA may | |||
| request proxy ND services from the AP for all of its IPv6 addresses, | request proxy ND services from the AP for all of its IPv6 addresses, | |||
| using the Extended Address Registration Option, which provides the | using the Extended Address Registration Option, which provides the | |||
| following elements: | following elements: | |||
| * The registration state has a lifetime that limits unwanted state | * The registration state has a lifetime that limits unwanted state | |||
| remanence in the network. | remanence in the network. | |||
| * The registration is optionally secured using [ADDR PROTECT] to | * The registration is optionally secured using [RFC8928] to prevent | |||
| prevent address theft and impersonation. | address theft and impersonation. | |||
| * The registration carries a sequence number, which enables to | * The registration carries a sequence number, which enables to | |||
| figure the order of events in a fast mobility scenario without | figure the order of events in a fast mobility scenario without | |||
| loss of connectivity. | loss of connectivity. | |||
| The ESS mode requires a proxy ND operation at the AP. The proxy ND | The ESS mode requires a proxy ND operation at the AP. The proxy ND | |||
| operation must cover Duplicate Address Detection, Neighbor | operation must cover Duplicate Address Detection, Neighbor | |||
| Unreachability Detection, Address Resolution and Address Mobility to | Unreachability Detection, Address Resolution and Address Mobility to | |||
| transfer a role of ND proxy to the AP where a STA is associated | transfer a role of ND proxy to the AP where a STA is associated | |||
| following the mobility of the STA. | following the mobility of the STA. | |||
| The WiND proxy ND specification that associated to the Address | The WiND proxy ND specification that associated to the Address | |||
| Registration is [BB ROUTER]. With that specification, the AP | Registration is [RFC8929]. With that specification, the AP | |||
| participates to the protocol as a Backbone Router, typically | participates to the protocol as a Backbone Router, typically | |||
| operating as a bridging proxy though the routing proxy operation is | operating as a bridging proxy though the routing proxy operation is | |||
| also possible. As a bridging proxy, the backbone router either | also possible. As a bridging proxy, the backbone router either | |||
| replies to NS lookups with the MAC address of the STA, or preferably | replies to NS lookups with the MAC address of the STA, or preferably | |||
| forwards the lookups to the STA as Link Layer unicast frames to let | forwards the lookups to the STA as Link Layer unicast frames to let | |||
| the STA answer. For the data plane, the backbone router acts as a | the STA answer. For the data plane, the backbone router acts as a | |||
| normal AP and bridges the packets to the STA as usual. As a routing | normal AP and bridges the packets to the STA as usual. As a routing | |||
| proxy, the backbone router replies with its own MAC address and then | proxy, the backbone router replies with its own MAC address and then | |||
| routes to the STA at the IP layer. The routing proxy reduces the | routes to the STA at the IP layer. The routing proxy reduces the | |||
| need to expose the MAC address of the STA on the wired side, for a | need to expose the MAC address of the STA on the wired side, for a | |||
| skipping to change at page 20, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 11 ¶ | |||
| (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, | (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | |||
| [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. | [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. | |||
| Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power | Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power | |||
| Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor | Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor | |||
| Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, | Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. | |||
| [ADDR PROTECT] | [RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik, | |||
| Thubert, P., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik, | "Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and | |||
| "Address Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-power and | Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November | |||
| Lossy Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>. | |||
| ietf-6lo-ap-nd-23, 30 April 2020, | ||||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-23>. | ||||
| [BB ROUTER] | [RFC8929] Thubert, P., Ed., Perkins, C.E., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, | |||
| Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 | "IPv6 Backbone Router", RFC 8929, DOI 10.17487/RFC8929, | |||
| Backbone Router", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8929>. | |||
| ietf-6lo-backbone-router-20, 23 March 2020, | ||||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone- | ||||
| router-20>. | ||||
| 11. Informative References | 11. Informative References | |||
| [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing | [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing | |||
| Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February | Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February | |||
| 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>. | 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>. | |||
| [RFC4903] Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903, | [RFC4903] Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC4903, June 2007, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4903, June 2007, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4903>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4903>. | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 21 ¶ | |||
| [I-D.ietf-rift-rift] | [I-D.ietf-rift-rift] | |||
| Przygienda, T., Sharma, A., Thubert, P., Rijsman, B., and | Przygienda, T., Sharma, A., Thubert, P., Rijsman, B., and | |||
| D. Afanasiev, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", Work in | D. Afanasiev, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-rift-12, 26 May | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-rift-12, 26 May | |||
| 2020, | 2020, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-rift-12>. | <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-rift-12>. | |||
| [RPL UNAWARE LEAVES] | [RPL UNAWARE LEAVES] | |||
| Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves", | Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves", | |||
| Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware- | Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware- | |||
| leaves-15, 15 April 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ | leaves-23, 10 November 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ | |||
| draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-15>. | draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-23>. | |||
| [DAD ISSUES] | [DAD ISSUES] | |||
| Yourtchenko, A. and E. Nordmark, "A survey of issues | Yourtchenko, A. and E. Nordmark, "A survey of issues | |||
| related to IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection", Work in | related to IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad- | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad- | |||
| issues-01, 3 March 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ | issues-01, 3 March 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ | |||
| draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues-01>. | draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues-01>. | |||
| [MCAST EFFICIENCY] | [MCAST EFFICIENCY] | |||
| Vyncke, E., Thubert, P., Levy-Abegnoli, E., and A. | Vyncke, E., Thubert, P., Levy-Abegnoli, E., and A. | |||
| Yourtchenko, "Why Network-Layer Multicast is Not Always | Yourtchenko, "Why Network-Layer Multicast is Not Always | |||
| Efficient At Datalink Layer", Work in Progress, Internet- | Efficient At Datalink Layer", Work in Progress, Internet- | |||
| Draft, draft-vyncke-6man-mcast-not-efficient-01, 14 | Draft, draft-vyncke-6man-mcast-not-efficient-01, 14 | |||
| February 2014, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke- | February 2014, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke- | |||
| 6man-mcast-not-efficient-01>. | 6man-mcast-not-efficient-01>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] | [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] | |||
| Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode | Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode | |||
| of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | |||
| draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28, 29 October 2019, | draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-29, 27 August 2020, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch- | <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch- | |||
| architecture-28>. | architecture-29>. | |||
| [MCAST PROBLEMS] | [MCAST PROBLEMS] | |||
| Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and J. | Perkins, C., McBride, M., Stanley, D., Kumari, W., and J. | |||
| Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | Zuniga, "Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless | |||
| Media", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | Media", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | |||
| mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11, 11 December 2019, | mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-12, 26 October 2020, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802- | <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802- | |||
| mcast-problems-11>. | mcast-problems-12>. | |||
| [SAVI] Bi, J., Wu, J., Wang, Y., and T. Lin, "A SAVI Solution for | [SAVI] Bi, J., Wu, J., Wang, Y., and T. Lin, "A SAVI Solution for | |||
| WLAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bi-savi- | WLAN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bi-savi- | |||
| wlan-19, 14 May 2020, | wlan-20, 14 November 2020, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bi-savi-wlan-19>. | <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bi-savi-wlan-20>. | |||
| [UNICAST AR] | [UNICAST AR] | |||
| Thubert, P. and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery | Thubert, P. and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery | |||
| Unicast Lookup", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | Unicast Lookup", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | |||
| thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup-00, 25 January 2019, | thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup-00, 25 January 2019, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-unicast- | <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lo-unicast- | |||
| lookup-00>. | lookup-00>. | |||
| [DAD APPROACHES] | [DAD APPROACHES] | |||
| Nordmark, E., "Possible approaches to make DAD more robust | Nordmark, E., "Possible approaches to make DAD more robust | |||
| End of changes. 32 change blocks. | ||||
| 87 lines changed or deleted | 86 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/ | ||||