idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-12.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6550, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 13, 2017) is 2594 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7416 == Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-45) exists of draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-34) exists of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-01 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ROLL Working Group M. Robles 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Updates: 6550 (if approved) M. Richardson 5 Intended status: Standards Track SSW 6 Expires: September 14, 2017 P. Thubert 7 Cisco 8 March 13, 2017 10 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 11 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-12 13 Abstract 15 This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power 16 and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power 17 and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document 18 enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 19 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which 20 to design efficient compression of these headers. 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 September 14, 2017. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2017 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 5. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 10 63 5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 11 64 5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 12 65 5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 12 66 5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 13 67 5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 14 68 5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 14 69 5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 15 70 5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 16 71 5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 17 72 5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 18 73 5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 74 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 75 6. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 76 6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 21 77 6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 22 78 6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22 79 6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 23 80 6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 24 81 6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 25 82 6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 25 83 6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 26 84 6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 27 85 6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 28 86 6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 29 87 6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 88 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 89 7. Observations about the cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 90 7.1. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 91 7.2. Non-Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 92 8. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 93 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 94 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 95 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 96 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 97 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 98 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 99 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 101 1. Introduction 103 RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) 104 [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553 105 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6 106 Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the 107 routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route 108 Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a 109 RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode. 111 These various items are referred to as RPL artifacts, and they are 112 seen on all of the data-plane traffic that occurs in RPL routed 113 networks; they do not in general appear on the RPL control plane 114 traffic at all which is mostly hop-by-hop traffic (one exception 115 being DAO messages in non-storing mode). 117 It has become clear from attempts to do multi-vendor 118 interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above 119 artifacts as possible that not all implementors agree when artifacts 120 are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed. 122 An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover 123 if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that 124 discussion. This document should not be defining anything new, but 125 it may clarify what is correct and incorrect behaviour. 127 The related document A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH) 128 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] defines a method to compress RPL 129 Option information and Routing Header type 3 [RFC6554], an efficient 130 IP-in-IP technique, and use cases proposed for the 131 [Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH. 133 The related document updates [RFC6550]. In general, any packet that 134 leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT 135 be discarded, when it has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as 136 the RPI or [RFC6554] SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3. Due to changes to 137 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] the RPI Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in 138 place even if the end host does not understand it. 140 2. Terminology and Requirements Language 142 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 143 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 144 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 146 Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN, 147 RPL, RPL Domain and ROLL. 149 RPL-node: It is device which implements RPL, thus we can say that the 150 device is RPL-capable or RPL-aware. Please note that the device can 151 be found inside the LLN or outside LLN. In this document a RPL-node 152 which is a leaf of a DODAG is called RPL-aware-leaf. 154 RPL-not-capable: It is device which do not implement RPL, thus we can 155 say that the device is not-RPL-aware. Please note that the device 156 can be found inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-node which 157 is a leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf. 159 2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers 161 The term "hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6" header refers to: adding a header 162 that originates from a node to an adjacent node, using the addresses 163 (usually the GUA or ULA, but could use the link-local addresses) of 164 each node. If the packet must traverse multiple hops, then it must 165 be decapsulated at each hop, and then re-encapsulated again in a 166 similar fashion. 168 3. Sample/reference topology 170 A RPL network is composed of a 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), Backbone 171 Router (6BBR), 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf 172 logically organized in a DODAG structure (Destination Oriented 173 Directed Acyclic Graph). 175 RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6 176 [RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information 177 Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination 178 Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with 179 different Code values. A RPL Stack is showed in Figure 1. 181 RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM), 182 it is fully stateful or an in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully 183 source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non- 184 storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non- 185 storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the 186 time of writing this document. 188 +--------------+ 189 | Upper Layers | 190 | | 191 +--------------+ 192 | RPL | 193 | | 194 +--------------+ 195 | ICMPv6 | 196 | | 197 +--------------+ 198 | IPv6 | 199 | | 200 +--------------+ 201 | 6LoWPAN | 202 | | 203 +--------------+ 204 | PHY-MAC | 205 | | 206 +--------------+ 208 Figure 1: RPL Stack. 210 +---------+ 211 +---+Internet | 212 | +---------+ 213 | 214 +----+--+ 215 | DODAG | node:01 216 +---------+ Root +----------+ 217 | | 6LBR | | 218 | +----+--+ | 219 | | | 220 | | | 221 ... ... ... 222 | | | 223 +-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+ 224 |6LR | | | | | 225 +-----+ | | | | | 226 | | 11 | | 12 | | 13 +------+ 227 | +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ | 228 | | | | | 229 | | | | | 230 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 231 +-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+ 232 |Leaf | | | | | |Leaf| |Leaf | 233 | 6LN | | | | | | 6LN| | 6LN | 234 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+ 236 Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology. 238 Figure 2 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The 239 numbers in or above the nodes are there so that they may be 240 referenced in subsequent sections. In the figure, a 6LN can be a 241 router or a host. The 6LN leafs marked as (21) is a RPL host that 242 does not have forwarding capability and (25) is a RPL router. The 243 leaf marked 6LN (24) is a device which does not speak RPL at all 244 (not-RPL-aware), but uses Router-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and 245 efficient-ND only to participate in the network [RFC6775]. In the 246 document this leaf (24) is often named IPv6 node. The 6LBR in the 247 figure is the root of the Global DODAG. 249 This document is in part motivated by the work that is ongoing at the 250 6TiSCH working group. The 6TiSCH architecture 251 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] draft explains the network 252 architecture of a 6TiSCH network. 254 4. Use cases 256 In data plane context a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in- 257 IPv6 encapsulation is going to be analyzed for the following traffic 258 flows. 260 This version of the document assumes the changes in 261 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are passed (at the time to write this 262 specification, the draft is on version 05). 264 The uses cases describe the communication between RPL-aware-nodes, 265 with the root (6LBR), and with Internet. This document also describe 266 the communication between nodes acting as leaf that does not 267 understand RPL and they are part of hte LLN. We name these nodes as 268 not-RPL-aware-leaf.(e.g. section 5.4- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 269 root) We describe also how is the communication inside of the LLN 270 when it has the final destination addressed outside of the LLN e.g. 271 with destination to Internet. (e.g. section 5.7- Flow from not-RPL- 272 aware-leaf to Internet) 274 The uses cases comprise as follow: 276 RPL-aware-leaf to root 278 root to RPL-aware-leaf 280 not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 282 root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 284 RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 286 Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 288 not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 290 Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 292 RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) 294 RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) 296 not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) 298 not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) 300 This document assumes the rule that a Header cannot be inserted or 301 removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This 302 is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in 303 [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except by the 304 sender or the receiver. 306 But, options in the Hop-by-Hop option which are marked with option 307 type 01 ([RFC2460] section 4.2 and [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]) SHOULD 308 be ignored when received by a host or router which does not 309 understand that option. 311 This means that in general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of 312 an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, when it 313 has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as the RPI or [RFC6554] 314 SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3. 316 The recent change to the second of these rules means that the RPI 317 Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in place even if the end host does not 318 understand it. 320 NOTE: There is some possible security risk when the RPI information 321 is released to the Internet. At this point this is a theoretical 322 situation. It is clear that the RPI option would waste some network 323 bandwidth when it escapes. 325 An intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or 326 RPI Option) must encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP 327 header. The new header can be placed is placed after this new outer 328 IP header. 330 A corollory is that an SHR3 or RPI Option can only be removed by an 331 intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header, 332 which is addressed to the intermediate router. When it does so, the 333 whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may be 334 added). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being 335 addressed to the next hop router using link-local addresses. 337 Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by 338 routers on the path of the packet without the need to add to remove 339 an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this 340 modification in mind, and both the RPL RH and the RPL option are 341 marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsec AH security header can be 342 applied across these headers, but it can not secure the values which 343 mutate. 345 RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one 346 exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the 347 root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written, 348 so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about 349 which forwarding table to use (as the root has already made all 350 routing decisions). There still may be cases (such as in 6tisch) 351 where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to 352 pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop. 354 In the tables present in this document, the term "RPL aware leaf" is 355 has been shortened to "Raf", and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been 356 shortened to "~Raf" to make the table fit in available space. 358 The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process 359 is clear, while later examples are more concise. 361 5. Storing mode 363 In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender cannot determine whether 364 the destination is RPL-capable and thus would need an IP-in-IP 365 header. The IP-in-IP header needs to be addressed on a hop-by-hop 366 basis so that the last 6LR can remove the RPI header. Additionally, 367 The sender can determine if the destination is inside the LLN by 368 looking if the destination address is matched by the DIO's PIO 369 option. 371 The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the 372 following scenarios, and indicates when the IP-in-IP header must be 373 inserted on a hop-by-hop basis, and when it can target the 374 destination node directly. There are these possible situations: hop- 375 by-hop necessary (indicated by "hop"), or destination address 376 possible (indicated by "dst"). In all cases hop by hop can be used. 377 In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the column is left 378 blank. 380 In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies 381 inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the 382 RH3 is not need because we do not indicate the route in stroing mode. 384 The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN 385 (Figure 2). 387 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 388 | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | 389 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 390 | Raf to root | No | -- | 391 | root to Raf | No | -- | 392 | root to ~Raf | No | -- | 393 | ~Raf to root | Yes | root | 394 | Raf to Int | No | -- | 395 | Int to Raf | Yes | raf | 396 | ~Raf to Int | root | raf | 397 | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root | 398 | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop | 399 | Raf to Raf | No | -- | 400 | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- | 401 | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst | 402 | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop | 403 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 405 Table 1: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode 407 5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 409 In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information 410 instanceID and rank information. 412 As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does 413 not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages 414 from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf 415 node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may 416 issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS 417 messages. 419 In this case the flow comprises: 421 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) 423 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 424 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 425 packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). 427 As it was mentioned In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full- 428 fledge RPL routers. 430 The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR which 431 decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up. When the packet 432 arrives at 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed. 434 No IP-in-IP header is required. 436 The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is 437 addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating 438 with the 6LBR to make use of this scenario. The 6LN can know the 439 address of the 6LBR because it knows the address of the root via the 440 DODAGID in the DIO messages. 442 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 443 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 444 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 445 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 446 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 447 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 448 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 449 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 450 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 452 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root 454 5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 456 In this case the flow comprises: 458 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 460 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 461 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 462 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). 464 In this case the 6LBR inserts RPI header and sends the packet down, 465 the 6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID 466 for multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed. 468 No IP-in-IP header is required. 470 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 471 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 472 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 473 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 474 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 475 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 476 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 477 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 478 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 480 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf 482 5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 484 In this case the flow comprises: 486 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 488 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 489 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 490 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). 492 As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this 493 situation is identical to the previous scenario. 495 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 496 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | 497 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 498 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 499 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | 500 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 501 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 502 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI (Ignored) | 503 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 505 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware- 506 leaf 508 5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 510 In this case the flow comprises: 512 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) 514 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 515 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 516 packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For 517 example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the 518 IPv6 node. 520 When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR_1, the 6LR_1 will 521 insert a RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 522 IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be addressed to the next hop, or to the root. 523 The root removes the header and processes the packet. 525 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 526 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 527 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 528 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 529 | headers | | | | | 530 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 531 | headers | | | | | 532 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 533 | headers | | | | | 534 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 535 | headers | | | | | 536 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | 537 | headers | | | | | 538 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 540 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 541 root 543 5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 545 RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be 546 ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware. 548 In this case the flow comprises: 550 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet 552 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 553 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 554 packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. 556 No IP-in-IP header is required. 558 Note: In this use case we use a node as leaf, but this use case can 559 be also applicable to any RPL-node type (e.g. 6LR) 561 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 562 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | 563 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 564 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | 565 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 566 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 567 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- | 568 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI | RPI (Ignored) | 569 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 571 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 572 Internet 574 5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 576 In this case the flow comprises: 578 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 580 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 581 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 582 packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). 584 When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added 585 in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the 586 rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is 587 removed and the packet processed. 589 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 590 | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 591 | | t | | | | 592 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 593 | Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 594 | headers | | IP(RPI) | | | 595 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 596 | headers | | | | | 597 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 598 | headers | | | | | 599 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 600 | headers | | | | | 601 | Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- | 602 | d | | | | | 603 | headers | | | | | 604 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 606 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware- 607 leaf 609 5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 611 In this case the flow comprises: 613 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> 614 Internet 616 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 617 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 618 packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. 620 The 6LR_1 (i=1) node will add an IP-in-IP(RPI) header addressed 621 either to the root, or hop-by-hop such that the root can remove the 622 RPI header before passing upwards. 624 The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero 625 so that the packet can be better compressed through the LLN. The 626 6LBR will set the flow label of the packet to a non-zero value when 627 sending to the Internet. 629 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 630 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | 631 | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | 632 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 633 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 634 | d | | IP(RPI) | | | | 635 | headers | | | | | | 636 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 637 | headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | 638 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 639 | added | | | | | | 640 | headers | | | | | | 641 | Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 642 | d | | | IP(RPI) | | | 643 | headers | | | | | | 644 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 645 | ed | | | | | | 646 | headers | | | | | | 647 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 649 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 650 Internet 652 5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf 654 In this case the flow comprises: 656 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 658 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 659 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 660 packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 6LR_i 661 updates the rank in the RPI. 663 The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IP-in-IP header. 664 The IP-in-IP can be addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf, leaving the 665 RPI inside. 667 The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IP-in-IP header to zero 668 in order to aid in compression. 670 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 671 | Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | 672 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 673 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 674 | headers | | | | | 675 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | 676 | headers | | | | | 677 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 678 | headers | | | | | 679 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 680 | headers | | | | | 681 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 682 | headers | | | | (Ignored) | 683 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 685 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- 686 aware-leaf 688 5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 690 In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop optimization for both 691 storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a packet destined 692 to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550]. 694 In this case the flow comprises: 696 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN 698 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the common parent 699 (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers 700 (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common parent 701 (6LR_x). 703 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 704 destination 6LN. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of 705 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the common parent 706 (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 708 This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent, 709 the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the 710 rank). 712 While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or 713 remove the RPI, so no IP-in-IP headers are necessary. This may be 714 done regardless of where the destination is, as the included RPI will 715 be ignored by the receiver. 717 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 718 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x (common | 6LR_id | 6LN | 719 | | src | | parent) | | dst | 720 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 721 | Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | 722 | headers | | | | | | 723 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 724 | headers | | | | | | 725 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 726 | headers | | | | | | 727 | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | 728 | headers | | | | | | 729 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 730 | headers | | | | | | 731 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 733 Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 734 aware-leaf 736 5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 738 In this case the flow comprises: 740 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 741 6LN (IPv6) 743 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (6LN) to the common 744 parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of 745 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common 746 parent (6LR_x). 748 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 749 destination not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", 750 m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the 751 common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 753 This situation is identical to the previous situation Section 5.9 754 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 755 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x(common | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 756 | | src | | parent) | | | 757 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 758 | Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | 759 | headers | | | | | | 760 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 761 | headers | | | | | | 762 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 763 | headers | | | | | | 764 | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | 765 | headers | | | | | | 766 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI(Ignored) | 767 | headers | | | | | | 768 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 770 Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 771 aware-leaf 773 5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 775 In this case the flow comprises: 777 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 778 6LR_id --> 6LN 780 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-aware 6LN 781 (IPv6)) to the common parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n 782 is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from source 783 to the common parent. 785 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 786 destination 6LN. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of 787 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the common parent 788 (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 790 The 6LR_ia (ia=1) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and 791 inserts and the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 792 IP-in-IP header is addressed to the destination 6LN. 794 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 795 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_ia | common | 6LR_id | 6LN | 796 | | | | parent | | | 797 | | | | (6LRx) | | | 798 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 799 | Insert | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 800 | ed hea | | IP(RPI) | | | | 801 | ders | | | | | | 802 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | 803 | d head | | | | | IP(RPI) | 804 | ers | | | | | | 805 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 806 | added | | | | | | 807 | header | | | | | | 808 | s | | | | | | 809 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 810 | ed hea | | | IP(RPI) | IP(RPI) | | 811 | ders | | | | | | 812 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 813 | hed he | | | | | | 814 | aders | | | | | | 815 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 817 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 818 RPL-aware-leaf 820 5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 822 In this case the flow comprises: 824 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_1--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 825 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 dst) 827 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-aware 6LN 828 (IPv6 src)) to the root (6LBR) In this case, "1 < ia >= n", n is the 829 number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from IPv6 src to 830 the root. 832 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to destination 833 (IPv6 dst). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of routers 834 (6LR) that the packet go through from the root to destination (IPv6 835 dst). 837 This flow is identical to Section 5.11 839 The 6LR_1 receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and inserts the 840 RPI header (RPIa) encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IPv6-in- 841 IPv6 header is addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LBR remove the IPv6-in- 842 IPv6 header and insert another one (RPIb) with destination to 6LR_m 843 node. 845 One of the side-effects of inserting IP-in-IP RPI header at 6LR_1, is 846 that now all the packets will go through the 6LBR, even though there 847 exists a shorter P2P path to the destination 6LN in storing mode. 848 One possible solution is given by the work in 849 [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]. Once we have route projection, the 850 root can find that this traffic deserves optimization (based on 851 volume and path length, or additional knowledge on that particular 852 flow) and project a DAO into 6LR_1. 854 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 855 | Heade | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_m | IPv | 856 | r | 6 | | | | | 6 | 857 | | src | | | | | dst | 858 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 859 | Inser | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 860 | ted h | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | | 861 | eader | | | | | | | 862 | s | | | | | | | 863 | Remov | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 864 | ed he | | | | | | | 865 | aders | | | | | | | 866 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 867 | added | | | | | IP(RPI_b) | | 868 | heade | | | | | | | 869 | rs | | | | | | | 870 | Modif | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 871 | ied h | | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | 872 | eader | | | | | | | 873 | s | | | | | | | 874 | Untou | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 875 | ched | | | | | | | 876 | heade | | | | | | | 877 | rs | | | | | | | 878 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 880 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 881 non-RPL-aware-leaf 883 6. Non Storing mode 884 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 885 | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | 886 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 887 | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- | 888 | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | -- | 889 | root to ~Raf | No | Yes | Yes | 6LR | 890 | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root | 891 | Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | 892 | Int to Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | dst | 893 | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | 894 | Int to ~Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | 6LR | 895 | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/dst | 896 | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | 897 | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LN | 898 | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | 899 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 901 Table 2: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP 902 encapsulation 904 6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 906 In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send 907 traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included to avoid/detect 908 loops. 910 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) 912 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 913 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 914 packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). 916 This situation is the same case as storing mode. 918 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 919 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 920 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 921 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 922 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 923 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 924 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 925 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 926 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 928 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 929 root 931 6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 933 In this case the flow comprises: 935 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 937 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 938 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 939 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). 941 The 6LBR will insert an RH3, and may optionally insert an RPI header. 942 No IP-in-IP header is necessary as the traffic originates with an RPL 943 aware node, the 6LBR. The destination is known to RPL-aware because, 944 the root knows the whole topology in non-storing mode. 946 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 947 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 948 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 949 | Inserted headers | (opt: RPI), RH3 | -- | -- | 950 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RH3,RPI | 951 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 952 | Modified headers | -- | RH3 | -- | 953 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 954 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 956 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware- 957 leaf 959 6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 961 In this case the flow comprises: 963 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 965 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 966 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 967 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). 969 In 6LBR the RH3 is added, modified in each intermediate 6LR (6LR_1 970 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n), but left 971 there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not 972 understand it will ignore it (following 2460bis), thus encapsulation 973 is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the 974 root, the 6LBR is able to address the IP-in-IP header to the last 975 6LR. 977 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 978 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 | 979 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 980 | Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- | 981 | headers | RH3 | | | | 982 | Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- | 983 | headers | | | | | 984 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 985 | headers | | | | | 986 | Modified | -- | (opt: RPI), | (opt: RPI), | -- | 987 | headers | | RH3 | RH3 | | 988 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 989 | headers | | | | | 990 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 992 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL- 993 aware-leaf 995 6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 997 In this case the flow comprises: 999 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) 1001 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1002 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1003 packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For 1004 example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the 1005 IPv6 node. 1007 In this case the RPI is added by the first 6LR (6LR1), encapsulated 1008 in an IP-in-IP header, and is modified in the followings 6LRs. The 1009 RPI and entire packet is consumed by the root. 1011 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1012 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 1013 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1014 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 1015 | headers | | | | | 1016 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 1017 | headers | | | | | 1018 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1019 | headers | | | | | 1020 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 1021 | headers | | | | | 1022 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1023 | headers | | | | | 1024 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1026 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1027 root 1029 6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 1031 In this case the flow comprises: 1033 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet 1035 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1036 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1037 packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. 1039 This case is identical to storing-mode case. 1041 The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression, and 1042 the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the 1043 Internet. 1045 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1046 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | 1047 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1048 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | 1049 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1050 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1051 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- | 1052 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI | RPI (Ignored) | 1053 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1055 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 1056 Internet 1058 6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 1060 In this case the flow comprises: 1062 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 1064 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1065 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1066 packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). 1068 The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and 1069 address of the target node, it can address the IP-in-IP header to 1070 that node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to 1071 aid compression. 1073 The RPI may be added or not, it is optional. 1075 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1076 | Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 1077 | | net | | | | 1078 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1079 | Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | 1080 | ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | 1081 | ders | | | | | 1082 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | 1083 | d head | | | | pt:RPI) | 1084 | ers | | | | | 1085 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1086 | added | | | | | 1087 | header | | | | | 1088 | s | | | | | 1089 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | 1090 | ed hea | | | pt:RPI) | | 1091 | ders | | | | | 1092 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1093 | hed he | | | | | 1094 | aders | | | | | 1095 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1097 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL- 1098 aware-leaf 1100 6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 1102 In this case the flow comprises: 1104 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> 1105 Internet 1106 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1107 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1108 packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. e.g 6LR_1 (i=1). 1110 In this case the flow label is recommended to be zero in the IPv6 1111 node. As RPL headers are added in the IPv6 node, the first 6LR 1112 (6LR_1) will add an RPI header inside a new IP-in-IP header. The IP- 1113 in-IP header will be addressed to the root. This case is identical 1114 to the storing-mode case (Section 5.7). 1116 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1117 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | 1118 | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | 1119 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1120 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 1121 | d | | IP(RPI) | | | | 1122 | headers | | | | | | 1123 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1124 | headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | 1125 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1126 | added | | | | | | 1127 | headers | | | | | | 1128 | Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1129 | d | | | IP(RPI) | | | 1130 | headers | | | | | | 1131 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1132 | ed | | | | | | 1133 | headers | | | | | | 1134 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1136 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1137 Internet 1139 6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1141 In this case the flow comprises: 1143 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 1145 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1146 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1147 packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 1149 The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR 1150 will know the path, and will recognize that the final node is not an 1151 RPL capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from 1152 the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IP-in-IP header 1153 destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will set to zero the flow 1154 label upon entry in order to aid compression. 1156 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1157 | Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i(i=2,. | IPv6 | 1158 | | net | | | .,n) | | 1159 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1160 | Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | -- | 1161 | ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | | 1162 | ders | | | | | | 1163 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1164 | d head | | | | IP(RH3, | | 1165 | ers | | | | RPI) | | 1166 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1167 | added | | | | | | 1168 | header | | | | | | 1169 | s | | | | | | 1170 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1171 | ed hea | | | IP(RH3, | IP(RH3, | | 1172 | ders | | | RPI) | RPI) | | 1173 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 1174 | hed he | | | | | | 1175 | aders | | | | | | 1176 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1178 NonStoring: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- 1179 aware-leaf 1181 6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 1183 In this case the flow comprises: 1185 6LN src --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN dst 1187 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1188 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1189 packet go through from 6LN to the root. 1191 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1192 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1193 routers (6LR). 1195 This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating 1196 node will add an RPI header to the original packet, and send the 1197 packet upwards. 1199 The originating node SHOULD put the RPI into an IP-in-IP header 1200 addressed to the root, so that the 6LBR can remove that header. If 1201 it does not, then additional resources are wasted on the way down to 1202 carry the useless RPI option. 1204 The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it 1205 add an IP-in-IP header. It SHOULD be able to remove the RPI, as it 1206 was contained in an IP-in-IP header addressed to it. Otherwise, 1207 there MAY be an RPI header buried inside the inner IP header, which 1208 should get ignored. 1210 Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially 1211 non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario 1212 Section 6.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR. 1214 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1215 | Header | 6LN src | 6LR_ | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN dst | 1216 | | | ia | | d | | 1217 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1218 | Inserte | IP-in- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3 | -- | -- | 1219 | d | IP(RPI1) | | to 6LN, opt | | | 1220 | headers | | | RPI2) | | | 1221 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | 1222 | headers | | | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | 1223 | | | | | | RPI2) | 1224 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1225 | added | | | | | | 1226 | headers | | | | | | 1227 | Modifie | -- | RPI1 | -- | RPI2 | -- | 1228 | d | | | | | | 1229 | headers | | | | | | 1230 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1231 | ed | | | | | | 1232 | headers | | | | | | 1233 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1235 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 1236 aware-leaf 1238 6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1240 In this case the flow comprises: 1242 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware (IPv6) 1244 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1245 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1246 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1247 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1248 routers (6LR). 1250 As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert an RPI (RPI_1) header 1251 which MUST be in an IP-in-IP header addressed to the root so that the 1252 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a 1253 new IP-in-IP header addressed to the 6LN destination node. The RPI 1254 is optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2). 1256 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1257 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 1258 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1259 | Insert | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1260 | ed hea | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | | | 1261 | ders | | | RPI_2) | | | 1262 | Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1263 | d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, | | 1264 | ers | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1265 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1266 | added | | | | | | 1267 | header | | | | | | 1268 | s | | | | | | 1269 | Modifi | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1270 | ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | | 1271 | ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1272 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | opt | 1273 | hed he | | | | | RPI_ | 1274 | aders | | | | | 2 | 1275 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1277 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 1278 not-RPL-aware-leaf 1280 6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 1282 In this case the flow comprises: 1284 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 1285 6LN 1287 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1288 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1290 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1291 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1292 routers (6LR). 1294 This scenario is mostly identical to the previous one. The RPI is 1295 added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IP-in-IP header addressed to 1296 the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add it's own IP-in-IP 1297 header containing an RH3 header and optional RPI (RPI_2). 1299 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1300 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN | 1301 | | 6 | | | | | 1302 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1303 | Insert | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1304 | ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | | 1305 | ders | | | RPI_2) | | | 1306 | Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | 1307 | d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | 1308 | ers | | | | | opt RPI_2) | 1309 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1310 | added | | | | | | 1311 | header | | | | | | 1312 | s | | | | | | 1313 | Modifi | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1314 | ed hea | | | | IP(RH3, | | 1315 | ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1316 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1317 | hed he | | | | | | 1318 | aders | | | | | | 1319 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1321 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1322 RPL-aware-leaf 1324 6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1326 In this case the flow comprises: 1328 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 1329 not-RPL-aware (IPv6 dst) 1331 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1332 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1334 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1335 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1336 routers (6LR). 1338 This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases. 1340 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1341 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 1342 | | 6 | | | | dst | 1343 | | src | | | | | 1344 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1345 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- | -- | 1346 | d | | IP(RPI_1) | | | | 1347 | headers | | | | | | 1348 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1349 | headers | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | 1350 | | | | | RPI_2) | | 1351 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1352 | added | | | | | | 1353 | headers | | | | | | 1354 | Modifie | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1355 | d | | | | | | 1356 | headers | | | | | | 1357 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1358 | ed | | | | | | 1359 | headers | | | | | | 1360 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1362 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1363 not-RPL-aware-leaf 1365 7. Observations about the cases 1367 7.1. Storing mode 1369 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows that the hop-by-hop IP-in-IP 1370 header can be compressed using IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IP-in-IP-6LoRH) header 1371 as described in Section 7 of the document. 1373 There are potential significant advantages to having a single code 1374 path that always processes IP-in-IP headers with no options. 1376 Thanks to the relaxation of the RFC2460 rule about discarding unknown 1377 Hop-by-Hop options, there is no longer any uncertainty about when to 1378 use an IPIP header in the storing mode case. The RPI header SHOULD 1379 always be added when 6LRs originate packets (without IPIP headers), 1380 and IPIP headers should always be added (addressed to the root when 1381 on the way up, to the end-host when on the way down) when a 6LR finds 1382 it needs to insert an RPI header. 1384 In order to support the above two cases with full generality, the 1385 different situations (always do IP-in-IP vs never use IP-in-IP) 1386 should be signaled in the RPL protocol itself. 1388 7.2. Non-Storing mode 1390 In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is 1391 much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the 1392 connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the 1393 root node. 1395 The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will 1396 receive a DAO about that node from the 6LN immediately above that 1397 node. This means that the non-storing mode case can avoid ever using 1398 hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers. 1400 Unlike in the storing mode case, there is no need for all nodes to 1401 know about the existence of non-RPL aware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs 1402 to change when there are non-RPL aware nodes. Further, in the non- 1403 storing case, the 6LBR is informed by the DAOs when there are non-RPL 1404 aware nodes. 1406 8. 6LoRH Compression cases 1408 The [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method 1409 for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6. 1411 In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non- 1412 RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise 1413 an IP-in-IP and RPI compression headers. The type of this case is 1414 critical since IP-in-IP is encapsulating a RPI header. 1416 +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ 1417 |1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC | 1418 +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ 1420 Figure 3: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI). 1422 9. IANA Considerations 1424 There are no IANA considerations related to this document. 1426 10. Security Considerations 1428 The security considerations covering of [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] apply 1429 when the packets get into RPL Domain. 1431 The IPIP mechanism described in this document is much more limited 1432 than the general mechanism described in [RFC2473]. The willingness 1433 of each node in the LLN to decapsulate traffic and forward it could 1434 be exploited by nodes to disguise the origin of an attack. 1436 Nodes outside of the LLN will need to pass IPIP traffic through the 1437 RPL root in order to exploit perform this attack, so the RPL root 1438 SHOULD either restrict ingress of IPIP packets (the simpler 1439 solution), or it SHOULD do a deep packet inspection wherein it walks 1440 the IP header extension chain until it can inspect the upper-layer- 1441 payload as described in [RFC7045]. In particular, the RPL root 1442 SHOULD do BCP38 ([RFC2827]) processing on the source addresses of all 1443 IP headers that it examines in both directions. 1445 Nodes with the LLN are able to use the IPIP mechanism to mount an 1446 attack on another part of the LLN, while disguising the origin of the 1447 attack. The mechanism can even be abused to make it appear that the 1448 attack is coming from outside the LLN, and unless countered, this 1449 could also be to mount a Distributed Denial of Service attack upon 1450 nodes elsewhere in the Internet. See [DDOS-KREBS] for an example of 1451 this. 1453 While a typical LLN may be a very poor origin for attack traffic, as 1454 the networks tend to very slow, and the nodes often have very low 1455 duty cycles, given enough of them, they could still have a 1456 significant impact, particularly on another LLN. Additionally, not 1457 all uses of RPL involve large backbone ISP scale equipment 1458 [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. 1460 Blocking or careful filtering of IPIP traffic entering the LLN as 1461 described above will make sure that any attack that is mounted must 1462 be originated from compromised nodes within the LLN. The use of 1463 BCP38 filtering at the RPL root on egress traffic will both alert the 1464 operator to the existence of the attack, as well as drop the attack 1465 traffic. As the RPL network is typically numbered from a single 1466 prefix, which is itself assigned by RPL, BCP38 filtering involves a 1467 single prefix comparison and should be trivial to automatically 1468 configure. 1470 There are some scenarios where IPIP traffic SHOULD be allowed to pass 1471 through the RPL root, such as the IPIP mediated communications 1472 between a new Pledge and the Join Coordinator when using 1473 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] and 1474 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]. This is the case for the 1475 RPL root to do careful filtering: it occurs only when the Join 1476 Coordinator is not co-located inside the RPL root. 1478 With the above precautions, an attack using IPIP tunnels will be by a 1479 node within the LLN on another node within the LLN. Such an attack 1480 could, of course, be done directly. An attack of this kind is 1481 meaningful only if the source addresses are either fake or if the 1482 point is for return traffic to be the attack. Such an attack, could 1483 also be done without the use of IPIP headers using forged source 1484 addresses. If the attack requires bi-directional communication, then 1485 IPIP provides no advantages. 1487 [RFC2473] suggests that tunnel entry and exit points can be secured, 1488 via the "Use IPsec". This solution has all the problems that 1489 [RFC5406] goes into. In an LLN such a solution would degenerate into 1490 every node having a tunnel with every other node. It would provide a 1491 small amount of origin address authentication at a very high cost; 1492 doing BCP38 at every node (linking layer-3 addresses to layer-2 1493 addresses, and to already present layer-2 cryptographic mechanisms) 1494 would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment where hostile 1495 nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN. 1497 The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways 1498 to the IPIP header. In non-storing networks where an RH3 may be 1499 acted upon, packets arriving into the LLN will be encapsulated with 1500 an IPIP header in order to add the needed RH3 header. As such, the 1501 attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it 1502 reaches the end host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host SHOULD 1503 be suspicious about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have 1504 not yet been processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header. 1506 In addition, the LLN will likely use [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 1507 to compress the IPIP and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the 1508 RPL-root will see the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the 1509 packet if the RH3 header has not been completely consumed. A 1510 consumed (inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows 1511 from one LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per 1512 the discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be 1513 removed. However, there is no case described in this document where 1514 an RH3 is inserted in a non-storing network on traffic that is 1515 leaving the LLN, but this document SHOULD NOT preclude such a future 1516 innovation. It should just be noted that an incoming RH3 must be 1517 fully consumed, or very carefully inspected. 1519 The RPI header, if permitted to enter the LLN, could be used by an 1520 attacker to change the priority of a packet by selecting a different 1521 RPL instanceID, perhaps one with a higher energy cost, for instance. 1522 It could also be that not all nodes are reachable in an LLN using the 1523 default instanceID, but a change of instanceID would permit an 1524 attacker to bypass such filtering. Like the RH3, an RPI header is to 1525 be inserted by the RPL root on traffic entering the LLN by first 1526 inserting an IPIP header. The attacker's RPI header therefore will 1527 not be seen by the network. Upon reaching the destination node the 1528 RPI header has no further meaning and is just skipped; the presence 1529 of a second RPI header will have no meaning to the end node as the 1530 packet has already been identified as being at it's final 1531 destination. 1533 The RH3 and RPI headers could be abused by an attacker inside of the 1534 network to route packets on non-obvious ways, perhaps eluding 1535 observation. This usage is in fact part of [RFC6997] and can not be 1536 restricted at all. This is a feature, not a bug. 1538 [RFC7416] deals with many other threats to LLNs not directly related 1539 to the use of IPIP headers, and this document does not change that 1540 analysis. 1542 11. Acknowledgments 1544 This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training 1545 Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728). 1547 The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and 1548 comments of (alphabetical order): Robert Cragie, Simon Duquennoy, 1549 Cenk Guendogan, Rahul Jadhav, Peter van der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana 1550 and Thomas Watteyne. 1552 12. References 1554 12.1. Normative References 1556 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] 1557 Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1558 (IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08 (work 1559 in progress), November 2016. 1561 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1562 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1563 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1564 . 1566 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1567 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 1568 December 1998, . 1570 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 1571 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 1572 December 1998, . 1574 [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: 1575 Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source 1576 Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, 1577 May 2000, . 1579 [RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec 1580 Version 2", BCP 146, RFC 5406, DOI 10.17487/RFC5406, 1581 February 2009, . 1583 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., 1584 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, 1585 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for 1586 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, 1587 DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, 1588 . 1590 [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- 1591 Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL 1592 Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, 1593 DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, 1594 . 1596 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 1597 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol 1598 for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, 1599 DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, 1600 . 1602 [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing 1603 of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, 1604 DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, 1605 . 1607 [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., 1608 and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for 1609 the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks 1610 (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, 1611 . 1613 12.2. Informative References 1615 [DDOS-KREBS] 1616 Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by 1617 >145k hacked cameras", September 2016, 1618 . 1621 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] 1622 Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode 1623 of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 (work 1624 in progress), January 2017. 1626 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] 1627 Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf- 1628 6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress), 1629 February 2017. 1631 [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] 1632 Behringer, M., Eckert, T., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic 1633 Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control- 1634 plane-05 (work in progress), January 2017. 1636 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] 1637 Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason, 1638 S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key 1639 Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping- 1640 keyinfra-04 (work in progress), October 2016. 1642 [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection] 1643 Thubert, P. and J. Pylakutty, "Root initiated routing 1644 state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-01 (work in 1645 progress), March 2017. 1647 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 1648 Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, 1649 "6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing- 1650 dispatch-05 (work in progress), October 2016. 1652 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet 1653 Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet 1654 Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, 1655 DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 1656 . 1658 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. 1659 Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over 1660 Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", 1661 RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, 1662 . 1664 [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and 1665 J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes 1666 in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, 1667 DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, 1668 . 1670 [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and 1671 Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 1672 2014, . 1674 [Second6TischPlugtest] 1675 "2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", . 1678 Authors' Addresses 1680 Maria Ines Robles 1681 Ericsson 1682 Hirsalantie 11 1683 Jorvas 02420 1684 Finland 1686 Email: maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com 1688 Michael C. Richardson 1689 Sandelman Software Works 1690 470 Dawson Avenue 1691 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 1692 CA 1694 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 1695 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/ 1697 Pascal Thubert 1698 Cisco Systems, Inc 1699 Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille 1700 Batiment T3, Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 1701 France 1703 Email: pthubert@cisco.com