idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 21, 2014) is 3741 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 535, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2464' is defined on line 583, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4941' is defined on line 599, 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' ** 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) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 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: July 25, 2014 January 21, 2014 7 Transmission of IPv6 packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks 8 draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-01 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 July 25, 2014. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 4. LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 4.1. Dispatch Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 5. LoWPAN addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 [RFC6997] to implement IPv6 routing over 126 G.9959 networks. 128 The encapsulation frame defined by this specification may optionally 129 be transported via mesh routing below the 6LoWPAN layer. Actual 130 routing protocols are out of scope of this document. 132 2.1. Terms used 134 ABR: Authoritative Border Router ([RFC6775]) 136 AES: Advanced Encryption Scheme 138 EUI-64: Extended Unique Identifier 140 HomeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Network Identifier 142 IID: Interface IDentifier 143 MAC: Media Access Control 145 MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit 147 NodeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Node Identifier (Short Address) 149 PAN: Personal Area Network 151 PDU: Protocol Data Unit 153 SAR: Segmentation And Reassembly 155 ULA: Unique Local Address 157 3. G.9959 parameters to use for IPv6 transport 159 This chapter outlines properties applying to the PHY and MAC of 160 G.9959 and how to use these for IPv6 transport. 162 3.1. Addressing mode 164 G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID network identifier is 165 assigned by a network controller and how an 8-bit NodeID host 166 identifier is allocated. NodeIDs are unique within the logical 167 network identified by the HomeID. The logical network identified by 168 the HomeID maps directly to an IPv6 subnet identified by one or more 169 IPv6 prefixes. 171 An IPv6 host SHOULD construct its link-local IPv6 address and 172 routable IPv6 addresses from the NodeID in order to facilitate IP 173 header compression as described in [RFC6282]. 175 A word of caution: since HomeIDs and NodeIDs are handed out by a 176 network controller function during inclusion, identifier validity and 177 uniqueness is limited by the lifetime of the logical network 178 membership. This can be cut short by a mishap occurring to the 179 network controller. Having a single point of failure at the network 180 controller suggests that deployers of high-reliability applications 181 should carefully consider adding redundancy to the network controller 182 function. 184 3.2. IPv6 Multicast support 186 [RFC3819] recommends that IP subnetworks support (subnet-wide) 187 multicast. G.9959 supports direct-range IPv6 multicast while subnet- 188 wide multicast is not supported natively by G.9959. Subnet-wide 189 multicast may be provided by an IP routing protocol or a mesh routing 190 protocol operating below the 6LoWPAN layer. Routing protocol 191 specifications are out of scope of this document. 193 IPv6 multicast packets MUST be carried via G.9959 broadcast. 195 As per [G.9959], this is accomplished as follows: 197 1. The destination HomeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the HomeID 198 of the logical network 200 2. The destination NodeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the 201 broadcast NodeID (0xff) 203 G.9959 broadcast MAC PDUs are only intercepted by nodes within the 204 logical network identified by the HomeID. 206 3.3. G.9959 MAC PDU size and IPv6 MTU 208 IPv6 packets MUST use G.9959 transmission profiles which support MAC 209 PDU payload sizes of 150 bytes or higher, e.g. the R3 profile. 210 G.9959 profiles R1 and R2 only supports MPDU payloads around 40 bytes 211 and the transmission speed is down to 9.6kbit/s. 213 [RFC2460] specifies that IPv6 packets may be up to 1280 octets. 214 However, a full IPv6 packet does not fit in an G.9959 MAC PDU. The 215 maximum G.9959 R3 MAC PDU payload size is 158 octets. Link-layer 216 security imposes an overhead, which in the extreme case leaves 130 217 octets available. 219 G.9959 provides Segmentation And Reassembly for payloads up to 1350 220 octets. Segmentation however adds further overhead. It is desirable 221 that datagrams can fit into a single G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 Header 222 Compression [RFC6282] improves the chances that a short IPv6 packet 223 can fit into a single G.9959 frame. Therefore, section Section 4 224 specifies that [RFC6282] MUST be supported. 226 3.4. Transmission status indications 228 The G.9959 MAC layer provides native acknowledgement and 229 retransmission of MAC PDUs. The G.9959 SAR layer does the same for 230 larger datagrams. A mesh routing layer may provide a similar feature 231 for routed communication. Acknowledgment and retransmission improves 232 the transmission success rate and frees higher layers from the burden 233 of implementing individual retransmission schemes. An IPv6 routing 234 stack communicating over G.9959 may utilize link-layer status 235 indications such as delivery confirmation and Ack timeout from the 236 MAC layer. 238 3.5. Transmission security 240 Implementations claiming conformance with this document MUST enable 241 G.9959 shared network key security. 243 The shared network key is intended to address security requirements 244 in the home at the normal security requirements level. For 245 applications with high or very high requirements on confidentiality 246 and/or integrity, additional application layer security measures for 247 end-to-end authentication and encryption may need to be applied. The 248 availability of the network relies on the security properties of the 249 network key in any case. 251 4. LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format 253 The 6LoWPAN encapsulation formats defined in this chapter are the 254 payload in the G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] 255 MUST be supported by implementations of this specification. 257 All 6LoWPAN datagrams transported over G.9959 are prefixed by a 258 6LoWPAN encapsulation header stack. The 6LoWPAN payload (e.g. an 259 IPv6 packet) follows this encapsulation header. Each header in the 260 header stack contains a header type followed by zero or more header 261 fields. An IPv6 header stack may contain, in the following order, 262 addressing, hop-by-hop options, routing, fragmentation, destination 263 options, and finally payload [RFC2460]. The 6LoWPAN header format is 264 structured the same way. Currently only payload options are defined 265 for the 6LoWPAN header format. 267 The definition of 6LoWPAN headers consists of the dispatch value, the 268 definition of the header fields that follow, and their ordering 269 constraints relative to all other headers. Although the header stack 270 structure provides a mechanism to address future demands on the 271 6LoWPAN adaptation layer, it is not intended to provide general 272 purpose extensibility. This document specifies a small set of 273 6LoWPAN header types using the 6LoWPAN header stack for clarity, 274 compactness, and orthogonality. 276 4.1. Dispatch Header 278 The dispatch header is shown below: 280 0 1 2 3 281 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 1 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 283 | 6LoWPAN CmdCls | Dispatch | Type-specific header | 284 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 286 Figure 1: Dispatch Type and Header 288 6LoWPAN CmdCls: 6LoWPAN Command Class identifier. This field MUST 289 carry the value 0x4F [G.9959]. The value specifies that the 290 following bits are a 6LoWPAN encapsulated datagram. Non-6LoWPAN 291 protocols MUST ignore the contents following the 6LoWPAN Command 292 Class identifier. 294 Dispatch: Identifies the header type immediately following the 295 Dispatch Header. 297 Type-specific header: A header determined by the Dispatch Header. 299 The dispatch value may be treated as an unstructured namespace. Only 300 a few symbols are required to represent current 6LoWPAN 301 functionality. Although some additional savings could be achieved by 302 encoding additional functionality into the dispatch byte, these 303 measures would tend to constrain the ability to address future 304 alternatives. 306 Dispatch values used in this specification are compatible with the 307 dispatch values defined by [RFC4944] and [RFC6282]. 309 +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+ 310 | Pattern | Header Type | Reference | 311 +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+ 312 | 01 000001 | IPv6 - Uncompressed IPv6 Addresses| [RFC4944] | 313 | 01 1xxxxx | 6LoWPAN_IPHC - 6LoWPAN_IPHC compressed IPv6| [RFC6282] | 314 +------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+ 315 All other Dispatch values are unassigned in this document. 317 Figure 2: Dispatch values 319 IPv6: Specifies that the following header is an uncompressed IPv6 320 header. 322 6LoWPAN_IPHC: IPv6 Header Compression. Refer to [RFC6282]. 324 5. LoWPAN addressing 326 IPv6 addresses are autoconfigured from IIDs which are again 327 constructed from link-layer address information to save memory in 328 devices and to facilitate efficient IP header compression as per 329 [RFC6282]. 331 A G.9959 NodeID is 8 bits in length. A NodeID is mapped into an IEEE 332 EUI-64 identifier as follows: 334 IID = 0000:00ff:fe00:YYXX 336 Figure 3: Constructing a compressible IID 338 where XX carries the G.9959 NodeID and YY is a one byte value chosen 339 by the individual node. The default YY value MUST be zero. A node 340 MAY use other values of YY than zero to form additional IIDs in order 341 to instantiate multiple IPv6 interfaces. The YY value MUST be 342 ignored when computing the corresponding NodeID (the XX value) from 343 an IID. 345 A 6LoWPAN network typically is used for M2M-style communication. The 346 method of constructing IIDs from the link-layer address obviously 347 does not support addresses assigned or constructed by other means. A 348 node MUST NOT compute the NodeID from the IID if the first 6 bytes of 349 the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 3. In that 350 case, the address resolution mechanisms of RFC 6775 apply. 352 5.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of routable IPv6 addresses 354 The IID defined above MUST be used whether autoconfiguring a ULA IPv6 355 address [RFC4193] or a globally routable IPv6 address [RFC3587] in 356 G.9959 subnets. 358 5.2. IPv6 Link Local Address 360 The IPv6 link-local address [RFC4291] for a G.9959 interface is 361 formed by appending the IID defined above to the IPv6 link local 362 prefix FE80::/64. 364 The "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit MUST be set to zero in keeping with 365 the fact that this is not a globally unique value [EUI64]. 367 The resulting link local address is formed as follows: 369 10 bits 54 bits 64 bits 370 +----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+ 371 |1111111010| (zeros) | Interface Identifier (IID) | 372 +----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+ 374 Figure 4: IPv6 Link Local Address 376 5.3. Unicast Address Mapping 378 The address resolution procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses 379 into G.9959 link-layer addresses follows the general description in 380 Section 7.2 of [RFC4861]. The Source/Target Link-layer Address 381 option MUST have the following form when the link layer is G.9959. 383 0 1 384 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 385 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 386 | Type | Length=1 | 387 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 388 | 0x00 | NodeID | 389 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 390 | Padding | 391 +- -+ 392 | (All zeros) | 393 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 395 Figure 5: IPv6 Unicast Address Mapping 397 Option fields: 399 Type: The value 1 signifies the Source Link-layer address. The value 400 2 signifies the Destination Link-layer address. 402 Length: This is the length of this option (including the type and 403 length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is 404 always 1 for G.9959 NodeIDs. 406 NodeID: This is the G.9959 NodeID the actual interface currently 407 responds to. The link-layer address may change if the interface 408 joins another network at a later time. 410 5.4. On the use of Neighbor Discovery technologies 412 [RFC4861] specifies how IPv6 nodes may resolve link layer addresses 413 from IPv6 addresses via the use of link-local IPv6 multicast. 414 [RFC6775] is an optimization of [RFC4861], specifically targeting 415 6LoWPAN networks. [RFC6775] defines how a 6LoWPAN node may register 416 IPv6 addresses with an authoritative border router (ABR). Mesh-under 417 networks SHOULD NOT use [RFC6775] address registration. However, 418 [RFC6775] address registration MUST be used if the first 6 bytes of 419 the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 3. 421 In route-over environments, IPv6 hosts MUST use [RFC6775] address 422 registration. [RFC6775] Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) SHOULD NOT 423 be used, since the link-layer inclusion process of G.9959 ensures 424 that a NodeID is unique for a given HomeID. 426 5.4.1. Prefix and CID management (Route-over) 428 A node implementation for route-over operation MAY use RFC6775 429 mechanisms for obtaining IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header 430 compression context information [RFC6282]. RFC6775 Route-over 431 requirements apply with no modifications. 433 5.4.2. Prefix and CID management (Mesh-under) 435 An implementation for mesh-under operation MUST use [RFC6775] 436 mechanisms for managing IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header 437 compression context information [RFC6282]. Except for the specific 438 redefinition of the RA Router Lifetime value 0xFFFF (refer to 439 Section 5.4.2.3), the text of the following subsections is in 440 compliance with [RFC6775]. 442 5.4.2.1. Prefix assignment considerations 444 When using [RFC6775] mechanisms for sending RAs, the M flag MUST NOT 445 be set. As stated by [RFC6775], an ABR is responsible for managing 446 prefix(es). Global prefixes may change over time. It is RECOMMENDED 447 that a ULA prefix is always assigned to the 6LoWPAN subnet to 448 facilitate stable site-local application associations based on IPv6 449 addresses. Prefixes used in the 6LoWPAN subnet are distributed by 450 normal RA mechanisms. 452 5.4.2.2. Robust and efficient CID management 454 The 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) is used according to [RFC6775] in an 455 RA to disseminate Context IDs (CID) to use for compressing prefixes. 456 Prefixes and corresponding Context IDs MUST be assigned during 457 initial node inclusion. 459 CIDs SHOULD be used in a cyclic fashion to assist battery powered 460 nodes with no real-time clock. When updating context information, a 461 CID may have its lifetime set to zero to obsolete it. The CID SHOULD 462 NOT be reused immediately; rather the next vacant CID should be 463 assigned. An ABR detecting the use of an obsoleted CID SHOULD 464 immediately send an RA with updated Context Information. Header 465 compression based on CIDs MUST NOT be used for RA messages carrying 466 Context Information. An expired CID and the associated prefix SHOULD 467 NOT be reset but rather retained in receive-only mode if there is no 468 other current need for the CID value. This will allow an ABR to 469 detect if a sleeping node without clock uses an expired CID and in 470 response, the LBR SHOULD immediately return an RA with fresh Context 471 Information to the originator. 473 5.4.2.3. Infinite prefix lifetime support for island-mode networks 475 Nodes MUST renew the prefix and CID according to the lifetime 476 signaled by the ABR. [RFC6775] specifies that the maximum value of 477 the RA Router Lifetime field MAY be up to 0xFFFF. This document 478 further specifies that the value 0xFFFF MUST be interpreted as 479 infinite lifetime. This value SHOULD NOT be used by ABRs. Its use 480 is only intended for a sleeping network controller; for instance a 481 battery powered remote control being master for a small island-mode 482 network of light modules. 484 6. Header Compression 486 IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] MUST be supported by 487 implementations of this specification. IPv6 header fields SHOULD be 488 compressed by default. When IPv6 header compression is used, it MUST 489 be according to [RFC6282]. This section will simply identify 490 substitutions that should be made when interpreting the text of 491 [RFC6282]. 493 In general the following substitutions should be made: 495 o Replace "802.15.4" with "G.9959" 497 o Replace "802.15.4 short address" with "" 499 o Replace "802.15.4 PAN ID" with "G.9959 HomeID" 501 When a 16-bit address is called for (i.e., an IEEE 802.15.4 "short 502 address") it MUST be formed by prepending an Interface label byte to 503 the G.9959 NodeID: 505 0 1 506 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 507 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 508 | Interface | NodeID | 509 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 511 A transmitting node may be sending to an IPv6 destination address 512 which can be reconstructed from the link-layer destination address. 513 If the Interface number is zero (the default value), all IPv6 address 514 bytes may be elided. Likewise, the Interface number of a fully 515 elided IPv6 address (i.e. SAM/DAM=11) may be reconstructed to the 516 value zero by a receiving node. 518 64 bit 802.15.4 address details MUST be ignored. This document only 519 specifies the use of short addresses. 521 7. IANA Considerations 523 This document makes no request of IANA. 525 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an 526 RFC. 528 8. Security Considerations 530 The method of derivation of Interface Identifiers from 8-bit NodeIDs 531 preserves uniqueness within the logical network. However, there is 532 no protection from duplication through forgery. Neighbor Discovery 533 in G.9959 links may be susceptible to threats as detailed in 534 [RFC3756]. G.9959 networks may feature mesh routing. This implies 535 additional threats due to ad hoc routing as per [KW03]. G.9959 536 provides capability for link-layer security. G.9959 nodes MUST use 537 link-layer security with a shared key. Doing so will alleviate the 538 majority of threats stated above. A sizeable portion of G.9959 539 devices is expected to always communicate within their PAN (i.e., 540 within their subnet, in IPv6 terms). In response to cost and power 541 consumption considerations, these devices will typically implement 542 the minimum set of features necessary. Accordingly, security for 543 such devices may rely on the mechanisms defined at the link layer by 544 G.9959. G.9959 relies on the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for 545 authentication and encryption of G.9959 frames and further employs 546 challenge-response handshaking to prevent replay attacks. 548 It is also expected that some G.9959 devices (e.g. billing and/or 549 safety critical products) will implement coordination or integration 550 functions. These may communicate regularly with IPv6 peers outside 551 the subnet. Such IPv6 devices are expected to secure their end-to- 552 end communications with standard security mechanisms (e.g., IPsec, 553 TLS, etc). 555 9. Acknowledgements 557 Thanks to the authors of RFC 4944 and RFC 6282 and members of the 558 IETF 6LoWPAN working group; this document borrows extensively from 559 their work. Thanks to Erez Ben-Tovim, Kerry Lynn, Michael 560 Richardson, Tommas Jess Christensen for useful comments. Thanks to 561 Carsten Bormann for extensive feedback which improved this document 562 significantly. 564 10. References 566 10.1. Normative References 568 [EUI64] IEEE, "communicationIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER 569 (EUI-64) REGISTRATION AUTHORITY", IEEE Std http:// 570 standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html, 571 November 2012. 573 [G.9959] "G.9959 (02/12) + G.9959 Amendment 1 (10/13): Short range, 574 narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers", 575 February 2012. 577 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 578 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 580 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 581 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 583 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 584 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 586 [RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global 587 Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003. 589 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 590 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 592 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 593 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 595 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 596 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 597 September 2007. 599 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 600 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 601 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 603 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 604 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 605 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 607 [RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 608 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, 609 September 2011. 611 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, 612 "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power 613 Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, 614 November 2012. 616 10.2. Informative References 618 [RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor 619 Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 620 2004. 622 [RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D., 623 Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L. 624 Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, 625 RFC 3819, July 2004. 627 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., 628 Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. 629 Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and 630 Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 632 [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and J. 633 Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in 634 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, August 2013. 636 Authors' Addresses 638 Anders Brandt 639 Sigma Designs 640 Emdrupvej 26A, 1. 641 Copenhagen O 2100 642 Denmark 644 Email: anders_brandt@sigmadesigns.com 645 Jakob Buron 646 Sigma Designs 647 Emdrupvej 26A, 1. 648 Copenhagen O 2100 649 Denmark 651 Email: jakob_buron@sigmadesigns.com