idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 25, 2013) is 3795 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'KW03' is mentioned on line 517, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'G.9959.llc' is defined on line 554, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'G.9959.sar' is defined on line 559, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2464' is defined on line 573, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4941' is defined on line 589, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EUI64' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G.9959.llc' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G.9959.sar' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'G.9959' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3587 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4941 (Obsoleted by RFC 8981) -- No information found for draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15 - is the name correct? Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) WG A. Brandt 3 Internet-Draft J. Buron 4 Intended status: Standards Track Sigma Designs 5 Expires: May 29, 2014 November 25, 2013 7 Transmission of IPv6 packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks 8 draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-00 10 Abstract 12 This document describes the frame format for transmission of IPv6 13 packets and a method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and 14 statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on ITU-T G.9959 networks. 16 Requirements Language 18 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 19 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 20 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2014. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Author's notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 1.1. Reader's guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.1. Terms used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. G.9959 parameters to use for IPv6 transport . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.1. Addressing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.2. IPv6 Multicast support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3.3. G.9959 MAC PDU size and IPv6 MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.4. Transmission status indications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 3.5. Transmission security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4. LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 4.1. Dispatch Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 5. LoWPAN addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 5.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of routable IPv6 70 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 5.2. IPv6 Link Local Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 5.3. Unicast Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 5.4. On the use of Neighbor Discovery technologies . . . . . . 9 74 5.4.1. Prefix and CID management (Route-over) . . . . . . . 10 75 5.4.2. Prefix and CID management (Mesh-under) . . . . . . . 10 76 6. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 79 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 85 1. Author's notes 87 This chapter MUST be deleted before going for document last call. 89 1.1. Reader's guidance 91 This document borrows heavily from RFC4944, "Transmission of IPv6 92 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks". The process of creating this 93 document was mainly a simplification; removing the following topics: 95 o EUI-64 link-layer addresses 96 o Fragmentation layer 98 o Mesh routing 100 The 16-bit short addresses of 802.15.4 have been changed to 8-bit 101 G.9959 NodeIDs. 103 2. Introduction 105 The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation [G.9959] targets low-power Personal 106 Area Networks (PANs). This document defines the frame format for 107 transmission of IPv6 [RFC2460] packets as well as the formation of 108 IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 109 addresses on G.9959 networks. 111 The general approach is to adapt elements of [RFC4944] to G.9959 112 networks. G.9959 provides a Segmentation and Reassembly (SAR) layer 113 for transmission of datagrams larger than the G.9959 MAC PDU. 115 [RFC6775] updates [RFC4944] by specifying 6LoWPAN optimizations for 116 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) (originally defined by [RFC4861]). This 117 document limits the use of [RFC6775] to prefix and Context ID 118 assignment. It is described how to construct an IID from a G.9959 119 link-layer address. Refer to Section 5. If using that method, 120 Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is not needed. Address 121 registration is only needed in certain cases. 123 In addition to IPv6 application communication, the frame format 124 defined in this document may be used by IPv6 routing protocols such 125 as RPL [RFC6550] or P2P-RPL [P2P-RPL] to implement IPv6 routing over 126 G.9959 networks. 128 G.9959 networks may implement mesh routing between nodes below the IP 129 layer. Mesh routing is out of scope of this document. 131 2.1. Terms used 133 ABR: Authoritative Border Router ([RFC6775]) 135 AES: Advanced Encryption Scheme 137 EUI-64: Extended Unique Identifier 139 HomeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Network Identifier 141 IID: Interface IDentifier 143 MAC: Media Access Control 144 MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit 146 NodeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Node Identifier (Short Address) 148 PAN: Personal Area Network 150 PDU: Protocol Data Unit 152 SAR: Segmentation And Reassembly 154 ULA: Unique Local Address 156 3. G.9959 parameters to use for IPv6 transport 158 This chapter outlines properties applying to the PHY and MAC of 159 G.9959 and how to use these for IPv6 transport. 161 3.1. Addressing mode 163 G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID network identifier is 164 assigned by a network controller and how an 8-bit NodeID host 165 identifier is allocated. NodeIDs are unique within the logical 166 network identified by the HomeID. The logical network identified by 167 the HomeID maps directly to an IPv6 subnet identified by one or more 168 IPv6 prefixes. 170 An IPv6 host SHOULD construct its link-local IPv6 address and 171 routable IPv6 addresses from the NodeID in order to facilitate IP 172 header compression as described in [RFC6282]. 174 A word of caution: since HomeIDs and NodeIDs are handed out by a 175 network controller function during inclusion, identifier validity and 176 uniqueness is limited by the lifetime of the logical network 177 membership. This can be cut short by a mishap occurring to the 178 network controller. Having a single point of failure at the network 179 controller suggests that deployers of high-reliability applications 180 should carefully consider adding redundancy to the network controller 181 function. 183 3.2. IPv6 Multicast support 185 [RFC3819] recommends that IP subnetworks support (subnet-wide) 186 multicast. G.9959 supports direct-range IPv6 multicast while subnet- 187 wide multicast is not supported natively by G.9959. Subnet-wide 188 multicast may be provided by an IP routing protocol or a mesh routing 189 protocol operating below the 6LoWPAN layer. Routing protocols are 190 out of scope of this document. 192 IPv6 multicast packets MUST be carried via G.9959 broadcast. 194 As per [G.9959], this is accomplished as follows: 196 1. The destination HomeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the HomeID 197 of the logical network 199 2. The destination NodeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the 200 broadcast NodeID (0xff) 202 G.9959 broadcast MAC PDUs are only intercepted by nodes within the 203 logical network identified by the HomeID. 205 3.3. G.9959 MAC PDU size and IPv6 MTU 207 IPv6 packets MUST use G.9959 transmission profiles which support MAC 208 PDU payload sizes of 150 bytes or higher, e.g. the R3 profile. 209 G.9959 profiles R1 and R2 only supports MPDU payloads around 40 bytes 210 and the transmission speed is down to 9.6kbit/s. 212 [RFC2460] specifies that IPv6 packets may be up to 1280 octets. 213 However, a full IPv6 packet does not fit in an G.9959 MAC PDU. The 214 maximum G.9959 R3 MAC PDU payload size is 158 octets. Link-layer 215 security imposes an overhead, which in the extreme case leaves 130 216 octets available. 218 G.9959 provides Segmentation And Reassembly for payloads up to 1350 219 octets. Segmentation however adds further overhead. It is therefore 220 desirable that datagrams can fit into a single G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 221 Header Compression [RFC6282] improves the chances that a short IPv6 222 packet can fit into a single G.9959 frame. 224 3.4. Transmission status indications 226 The G.9959 MAC layer provides native acknowledgement and 227 retransmission of MAC PDUs. The G.9959 SAR layer does the same for 228 larger datagrams. A mesh routing layer may provide a similar feature 229 for routed communication. Acknowledgment and retransmission improves 230 the transmission success rate and frees higher layers from the burden 231 of implementing individual retransmission schemes. An IPv6 routing 232 stack communicating over G.9959 may utilize link-layer status 233 indications such as delivery confirmation and Ack timeout from the 234 MAC layer. 236 3.5. Transmission security 238 Implementations claiming conformance with this document MUST enable 239 G.9959 shared network key security. 241 The shared network key is intended to address security requirements 242 in the home at the normal security requirements level. For 243 applications with high or very high requirements on confidentiality 244 and/or integrity, additional application layer security measures for 245 end-to-end authentication and encryption may need to be applied. The 246 availability of the network relies on the security properties of the 247 network key in any case. 249 4. LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format 251 The 6LoWPAN encapsulation formats defined in this chapter are the 252 payload in the G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] 253 MUST be supported by implementations of this specification. 255 All 6LoWPAN datagrams transported over G.9959 are prefixed by a 256 6LoWPAN encapsulation header stack. The 6LoWPAN payload (e.g. an 257 IPv6 packet) follows this encapsulation header. Each header in the 258 header stack contains a header type followed by zero or more header 259 fields. An IPv6 header stack may contain, in the following order, 260 addressing, hop-by-hop options, routing, fragmentation, destination 261 options, and finally payload [RFC2460]. The 6LoWPAN header format is 262 structured the same way. Currently only payload options are defined 263 for the 6LoWPAN header format. 265 The definition of 6LoWPAN headers consists of the dispatch value, the 266 definition of the header fields that follow, and their ordering 267 constraints relative to all other headers. Although the header stack 268 structure provides a mechanism to address future demands on the 269 6LoWPAN adaptation layer, it is not intended to provide general 270 purpose extensibility. This document specifies a small set of 271 6LoWPAN header types using the 6LoWPAN header stack for clarity, 272 compactness, and orthogonality. 274 4.1. Dispatch Header 276 The dispatch header is shown below: 278 0 1 2 3 279 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 1 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 281 | 6LoWPAN CmdCls | Dispatch | Type-specific header | 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 284 Figure 1: Dispatch Type and Header 286 6LoWPAN CmdCls: 6LoWPAN Command Class identifier. This field MUST 287 carry the value 0x4F [G.9959]. The value specifies that the 288 following bits are a 6LoWPAN encapsulated datagram. Non-6LoWPAN 289 protocols MUST ignore the contents following the 6LoWPAN Command 290 Class identifier. 292 Dispatch: Identifies the header type immediately following the 293 Dispatch Header. 295 Type-specific header: A header determined by the Dispatch Header. 297 The dispatch value may be treated as an unstructured namespace. Only 298 a few symbols are required to represent current 6LoWPAN 299 functionality. Although some additional savings could be achieved by 300 encoding additional functionality into the dispatch byte, these 301 measures would tend to constrain the ability to address future 302 alternatives. 304 Dispatch values used in this specification are compatible with the 305 dispatch values defined by [RFC4944] and [RFC6282]. 307 +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+ 308 | Pattern | Header Type | Reference | 309 +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+ 310 | 01 000001 | IPv6 - Uncompressed IPv6 Addresses| [RFC4944] | 311 | 01 1xxxxx | 6LoWPAN_IPHC - 6LoWPAN_IPHC compressed IPv6| [RFC6282] | 312 +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+ 313 All other Dispatch values are unassigned in this document. 315 Figure 2: Dispatch values 317 IPv6: Specifies that the following header is an uncompressed IPv6 318 header. 320 6LoWPAN_IPHC: IPv6 Header Compression. Refer to [RFC6282]. 322 5. LoWPAN addressing 324 IPv6 addresses are autoconfigured from IIDs which are again 325 constructed from link-layer address information to save memory in 326 devices and to facilitate efficient IP header compression as per 327 [RFC6282]. 329 A G.9959 NodeID is 8 bits in length. A NodeID is mapped into an IEEE 330 EUI-64 identifier as follows: 332 IID = 0000:00ff:fe00:YYXX 334 Figure 3: Constructing a compressible IID 336 where XX carries the G.9959 NodeID and YY is a one byte value chosen 337 by the individual node. The default YY value MUST be zero. A node 338 MAY use other values of YY than zero to form additional IIDs in order 339 to instantiate multiple IPv6 interfaces. The YY value MUST be 340 ignored when computing the corresponding NodeID (the XX value) from 341 an IID. 343 A 6LoWPAN network typically is used for M2M-style communication. The 344 method of constructing IIDs from the link-layer address obviously 345 does not support addresses assigned or constructed by other means. A 346 node MUST NOT compute the NodeID from the IID if the first 6 bytes of 347 the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 3. In that 348 case, the address resolution mechanisms of RFC 6775 apply. 350 5.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of routable IPv6 addresses 352 The IID defined above MUST be used whether autoconfiguring a ULA IPv6 353 address [RFC4193] or a globally routable IPv6 address [RFC3587] in 354 G.9959 subnets. 356 5.2. IPv6 Link Local Address 358 The IPv6 link-local address [RFC4291] for a G.9959 interface is 359 formed by appending the IID defined above to the IPv6 link local 360 prefix FE80::/64. 362 The "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit MUST be set to zero in keeping with 363 the fact that this is not a globally unique value [EUI64]. 365 The resulting link local address is formed as follows: 367 10 bits 54 bits 64 bits 368 +----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+ 369 |1111111010| (zeros) | Interface Identifier (IID) | 370 +----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+ 372 Figure 4: IPv6 Link Local Address 374 5.3. Unicast Address Mapping 376 The address resolution procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses 377 into G.9959 link-layer addresses follows the general description in 378 Section 7.2 of [RFC4861]. The Source/Target Link-layer Address 379 option MUST have the following form when the link layer is G.9959. 381 0 1 382 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 383 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 384 | Type | Length=1 | 385 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 386 | 0x00 | NodeID | 387 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 388 | Padding | 389 +- -+ 390 | (All zeros) | 391 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 393 Figure 5: IPv6 Unicast Address Mapping 395 Option fields: 397 Type: The value 1 signifies the Source Link-layer address. The value 398 2 signifies the Destination Link-layer address. 400 Length: This is the length of this option (including the type and 401 length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is 402 always 1 for G.9959 NodeIDs. 404 NodeID: This is the G.9959 NodeID the actual interface currently 405 responds to. The link-layer address may change if the interface 406 joins another network at a later time. 408 5.4. On the use of Neighbor Discovery technologies 410 [RFC4861] specifies how IPv6 nodes may resolve link layer addresses 411 from IPv6 addresses via the use of link-local IPv6 multicast. 412 [RFC6775] is an optimization of [RFC4861], specifically targeting 413 6LoWPAN networks. [RFC6775] defines how a 6LoWPAN node may register 414 IPv6 addresses with an authoritative border router (ABR). Generally, 415 nodes SHOULD NOT use [RFC6775] address registration. However, 416 address registration MUST be used if the first 6 bytes of the IID do 417 not comply with the format defined in Figure 3. 419 In route-over environments, IPv6 hosts MUST use [RFC6775] address 420 registration. [RFC6775] Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) SHOULD NOT 421 be used, since the link-layer inclusion process of G.9959 ensures 422 that a NodeID is unique for a given HomeID. 424 5.4.1. Prefix and CID management (Route-over) 426 A node implementation for route-over operation MAY use RFC6775 427 mechanisms for obtaining IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header 428 compression context information [RFC6282]. RFC6775 Route-over 429 requirements apply with no modifications. 431 5.4.2. Prefix and CID management (Mesh-under) 433 An implementation for mesh-under operation MUST use [RFC6775] 434 mechanisms for managing IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header 435 compression context information [RFC6282]. When using [RFC6775] 436 mechanisms for sending RAs, the M flag MUST NOT be set. As stated by 437 [RFC6775], an ABR is responsible for managing prefix(es). Global 438 prefixes may change over time. It is RECOMMENDED that a ULA prefix 439 is always assigned to the 6LoWPAN subnet to facilitate stable site- 440 local application associations based on IPv6 addresses. Prefixes 441 used in the 6LoWPAN subnet are distributed by normal RA mechanisms. 442 The 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) is used according to [RFC6775] in an 443 RA to disseminate Context IDs (CID) to use for compressing prefixes. 444 Prefixes and corresponding Context IDs MUST be assigned during 445 initial node inclusion. Nodes MUST renew the prefix and CID 446 according to the lifetime signaled by the ABR. [RFC6775] specifies 447 that the maximum value of the RA Router Lifetime field MAY be up to 448 0xFFFF. This document further specifies that the value 0xFFFF MUST 449 be interpreted as infinite lifetime. This value SHOULD NOT be used 450 by ABRs. Its use is only intended for a sleeping network controller; 451 for instance a battery powered remote control being master for a 452 small island-mode network of light modules. CIDs SHOULD be used in a 453 cyclic fashion to assist battery powered nodes with no real-time 454 clock. When updating context information, a CID may have its 455 lifetime set to zero to obsolete it. The CID SHOULD NOT be reused 456 immediately; rather the next vacant CID should be assigned. An ABR 457 detecting the use of an obsoleted CID SHOULD immediately send an RA 458 with updated Context Information. Header compression based on CIDs 459 MUST NOT be used for RA messages carrying Context Information. An 460 expired CID and the associated prefix SHOULD NOT be reset but rather 461 retained in receive-only mode if there is no other current need for 462 the CID value. This will allow an ABR to detect if a sleeping node 463 without clock uses an expired CID and in response, the LBR SHOULD 464 immediately return an RA with fresh Context Information to the 465 originator. Except for the specific redefinition of the RA Router 466 Lifetime value 0xFFFF, the above text is in compliance with 467 [RFC6775]. 469 6. Header Compression 470 IPv6 header fields SHOULD be compressed. If IPv6 header compression 471 is used, it MUST be according to [RFC6282]. This section will simply 472 identify substitutions that should be made when interpreting the text 473 of [RFC6282]. 475 In general the following substitutions should be made: 477 o Replace "802.15.4" with "G.9959" 479 o Replace "802.15.4 short address" with "" 481 o Replace "802.15.4 PAN ID" with "G.9959 HomeID" 483 When a 16-bit address is called for (i.e., an IEEE 802.15.4 "short 484 address") it MUST be formed by prepending an Interface label byte to 485 the G.9959 NodeID: 487 0 1 488 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 489 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 490 | Interface | NodeID | 491 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 493 A transmitting node may be sending to an IPv6 destination address 494 which can be reconstructed from the link-layer destination address. 495 If the Interface number is zero (the default value), all IPv6 address 496 bytes may be elided. Likewise, the Interface number of a fully 497 elided IPv6 address (i.e. SAM/DAM=11) may be reconstructed to the 498 value zero by a receiving node. 500 64 bit 802.15.4 address details MUST be ignored. This document only 501 specifies the use of short addresses. 503 7. IANA Considerations 505 This document makes no request of IANA. 507 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an 508 RFC. 510 8. Security Considerations 512 The method of derivation of Interface Identifiers from 8-bit NodeIDs 513 preserves uniqueness within the logical network. However, there is 514 no protection from duplication through forgery. Neighbor Discovery 515 in G.9959 links may be susceptible to threats as detailed in 516 [RFC3756]. G.9959 networks may feature mesh routing. This implies 517 additional threats due to ad hoc routing as per [KW03]. G.9959 518 provides capability for link-layer security. G.9959 nodes MUST use 519 link-layer security with a shared key. Doing so will alleviate the 520 majority of threats stated above. A sizeable portion of G.9959 521 devices is expected to always communicate within their PAN (i.e., 522 within their subnet, in IPv6 terms). In response to cost and power 523 consumption considerations, these devices will typically implement 524 the minimum set of features necessary. Accordingly, security for 525 such devices may rely on the mechanisms defined at the link layer by 526 G.9959. G.9959 relies on the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for 527 authentication and encryption of G.9959 frames and further employs 528 challenge-response handshaking to prevent replay attacks. 530 It is also expected that some G.9959 devices (e.g. billing and/or 531 safety critical products) will implement coordination or integration 532 functions. These may communicate regularly with IPv6 peers outside 533 the subnet. Such IPv6 devices are expected to secure their end-to- 534 end communications with standard security mechanisms (e.g., IPsec, 535 TLS, etc). 537 9. Acknowledgements 539 Thanks to the authors of RFC 4944 and RFC 6282 and members of the 540 IETF 6LoWPAN working group; this document borrows extensively from 541 their work. Thanks to Kerry Lynn, Tommas Jess Christensen and Erez 542 Ben-Tovim for useful discussions. Thanks to Carsten Bormann for 543 extensive feedback which improved this document significantly. 545 10. References 547 10.1. Normative References 549 [EUI64] IEEE, "GUIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER (EUI-64) 550 REGISTRATION AUTHORITY", IEEE Std http:// 551 standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html, 552 November 2012. 554 [G.9959.llc] 555 ITU-T, "G.9959 Contribution: Logical Link Control (LLC) 556 layer", ITU-T draft contribution 2013-04-Q15-023.doc, 557 April 2013. 559 [G.9959.sar] 560 ITU-T, "G.9959 Contribution: Segmentation And Reassembly 561 (SAR) adaptation layer", ITU-T draft contribution 562 2013-04-Q15-024.doc, April 2013. 564 [G.9959] ITU-T, "G.9959: Low-Power, narrowband radio for control 565 applications", January 2012. 567 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 568 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 570 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 571 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 573 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 574 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 576 [RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global 577 Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003. 579 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 580 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 582 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 583 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 585 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 586 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 587 September 2007. 589 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 590 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 591 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 593 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 594 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 595 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 597 [RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 598 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, 599 September 2011. 601 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, 602 "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power 603 Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, 604 November 2012. 606 10.2. Informative References 608 [P2P-RPL] Goyal, M., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and J. 609 Martocci, "IETF, I-D.ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-15, Reactive 610 Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low Power and Lossy 611 Networks", December 2012. 613 [RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor 614 Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 615 2004. 617 [RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D., 618 Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L. 619 Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, 620 RFC 3819, July 2004. 622 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., 623 Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. 624 Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and 625 Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 627 Authors' Addresses 629 Anders Brandt 630 Sigma Designs 631 Emdrupvej 26A, 1. 632 Copenhagen O 2100 633 Denmark 635 Email: anders_brandt@sigmadesigns.com 637 Jakob Buron 638 Sigma Designs 639 Emdrupvej 26A, 1. 640 Copenhagen O 2100 641 Denmark 643 Email: jakob_buron@sigmadesigns.com