idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-14.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 (April 5, 2017) is 2578 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.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reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7416 == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-30) exists of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-45) exists of draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-34) exists of draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-01 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).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: October 7, 2017 P. Thubert 7 Cisco 8 April 5, 2017 10 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 11 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-14 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 October 7, 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 pledge: a new device which seeks admission to a network. (from 160 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]) 162 Join Registrar and Coordinator (JRC): a device which brings new nodes 163 (pledges) into a network. (from 164 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]) 166 2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers 168 The term "hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6" header refers to: adding a header 169 that originates from a node to an adjacent node, using the addresses 170 (usually the GUA or ULA, but could use the link-local addresses) of 171 each node. If the packet must traverse multiple hops, then it must 172 be decapsulated at each hop, and then re-encapsulated again in a 173 similar fashion. 175 3. Sample/reference topology 177 A RPL network is composed of a 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), Backbone 178 Router (6BBR), 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf 179 logically organized in a DODAG structure (Destination Oriented 180 Directed Acyclic Graph). 182 RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6 183 [RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information 184 Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination 185 Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with 186 different Code values. A RPL Stack is showed in Figure 1. 188 RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM), 189 it is fully stateful or an in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully 190 source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non- 191 storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non- 192 storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the 193 time of writing this document. 195 +--------------+ 196 | Upper Layers | 197 | | 198 +--------------+ 199 | RPL | 200 | | 201 +--------------+ 202 | ICMPv6 | 203 | | 204 +--------------+ 205 | IPv6 | 206 | | 207 +--------------+ 208 | 6LoWPAN | 209 | | 210 +--------------+ 211 | PHY-MAC | 212 | | 213 +--------------+ 215 Figure 1: RPL Stack. 217 +---------+ 218 +---+Internet | 219 | +---------+ 220 | 221 +----+--+ 222 | DODAG | node:01 223 +---------+ Root +----------+ 224 | | 6LBR | | 225 | +----+--+ | 226 | | | 227 | | | 228 ... ... ... 229 | | | 230 +-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+ 231 |6LR | | | | | 232 +-----+ | | | | | 233 | | 11 | | 12 | | 13 +------+ 234 | +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ | 235 | | | | | 236 | | | | | 237 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 238 +-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+ 239 |Leaf | | | | | |Leaf| |Leaf | 240 | 6LN | | | | | | 6LN| | 6LN | 241 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+ 243 Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology. 245 Figure 2 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The 246 numbers in or above the nodes are there so that they may be 247 referenced in subsequent sections. In the figure, a 6LN can be a 248 router or a host. The 6LN leafs marked as (21) is a RPL host that 249 does not have forwarding capability and (25) is a RPL router. The 250 leaf marked 6LN (24) is a device which does not speak RPL at all 251 (not-RPL-aware), but uses Router-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and 252 efficient-ND only to participate in the network [RFC6775]. In the 253 document this leaf (24) is often named IPv6 node. The 6LBR in the 254 figure is the root of the Global DODAG. 256 This document is in part motivated by the work that is ongoing at the 257 6TiSCH working group. The 6TiSCH architecture 258 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] draft explains the network 259 architecture of a 6TiSCH network. 261 4. Use cases 263 In data plane context a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in- 264 IPv6 encapsulation is going to be analyzed for the following traffic 265 flows. 267 This version of the document assumes the changes in 268 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are passed (at the time to write this 269 specification, the draft is on version 05). 271 The uses cases describe the communication between RPL-aware-nodes, 272 with the root (6LBR), and with Internet. This document also describe 273 the communication between nodes acting as leaf that does not 274 understand RPL and they are part of hte LLN. We name these nodes as 275 not-RPL-aware-leaf.(e.g. section 5.4- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 276 root) We describe also how is the communication inside of the LLN 277 when it has the final destination addressed outside of the LLN e.g. 278 with destination to Internet. (e.g. section 5.7- Flow from not-RPL- 279 aware-leaf to Internet) 281 The uses cases comprise as follow: 283 RPL-aware-leaf to root 285 root to RPL-aware-leaf 287 not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 289 root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 291 RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 293 Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 295 not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 297 Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 299 RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) 301 RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) 303 not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) 305 not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) 307 This document assumes the rule that a Header cannot be inserted or 308 removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This 309 is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in 310 [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except by the 311 sender or the receiver. 313 But, options in the Hop-by-Hop option which are marked with option 314 type 01 ([RFC2460] section 4.2 and [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]) SHOULD 315 be ignored when received by a host or router which does not 316 understand that option. 318 This means that in general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of 319 an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, when it 320 has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as the RPI or [RFC6554] 321 SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3. 323 The recent change to the second of these rules means that the RPI 324 Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in place even if the end host does not 325 understand it. 327 NOTE: There is some possible security risk when the RPI information 328 is released to the Internet. At this point this is a theoretical 329 situation. It is clear that the RPI option would waste some network 330 bandwidth when it escapes. 332 An intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or 333 RPI Option) must encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP 334 header. The new header can be placed is placed after this new outer 335 IP header. 337 A corollory is that an SHR3 or RPI Option can only be removed by an 338 intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header, 339 which is addressed to the intermediate router. When it does so, the 340 whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may be 341 added). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being 342 addressed to the next hop router using link-local addresses. 344 Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by 345 routers on the path of the packet without the need to add to remove 346 an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this 347 modification in mind, and both the RPL RH and the RPL option are 348 marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsec AH security header can be 349 applied across these headers, but it can not secure the values which 350 mutate. 352 RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one 353 exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the 354 root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written, 355 so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about 356 which forwarding table to use (as the root has already made all 357 routing decisions). There still may be cases (such as in 6tisch) 358 where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to 359 pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop. 361 In the tables present in this document, the term "RPL aware leaf" is 362 has been shortened to "Raf", and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been 363 shortened to "~Raf" to make the table fit in available space. 365 The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process 366 is clear, while later examples are more concise. 368 5. Storing mode 370 In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender cannot determine whether 371 the destination is RPL-capable and thus would need an IP-in-IP 372 header. The IP-in-IP header needs to be addressed on a hop-by-hop 373 basis so that the last 6LR can remove the RPI header. Additionally, 374 The sender can determine if the destination is inside the LLN by 375 looking if the destination address is matched by the DIO's PIO 376 option. 378 The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the 379 following scenarios, and indicates when the IP-in-IP header must be 380 inserted on a hop-by-hop basis, and when it can target the 381 destination node directly. There are these possible situations: hop- 382 by-hop necessary (indicated by "hop"), or destination address 383 possible (indicated by "dst"). In all cases hop by hop can be used. 384 In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the column is left 385 blank. 387 In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies 388 inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the 389 RH3 is not need because we do not indicate the route in stroing mode. 391 The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN 392 (Figure 2). 394 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 395 | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | 396 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 397 | Raf to root | No | -- | 398 | root to Raf | No | -- | 399 | root to ~Raf | No | -- | 400 | ~Raf to root | Yes | root | 401 | Raf to Int | No | -- | 402 | Int to Raf | Yes | raf | 403 | ~Raf to Int | root | raf | 404 | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root | 405 | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop | 406 | Raf to Raf | No | -- | 407 | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- | 408 | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst | 409 | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop | 410 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 412 Table 1: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode 414 5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 416 In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information 417 instanceID and rank information. 419 As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does 420 not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages 421 from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf 422 node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may 423 issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS 424 messages. 426 In this case the flow comprises: 428 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) 430 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 431 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 432 packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). 434 As it was mentioned In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full- 435 fledge RPL routers. 437 The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR which 438 decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up. When the packet 439 arrives at 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed. 441 No IP-in-IP header is required. 443 The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is 444 addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating 445 with the 6LBR to make use of this scenario. The 6LN can know the 446 address of the 6LBR because it knows the address of the root via the 447 DODAGID in the DIO messages. 449 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 450 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 451 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 452 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 453 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 454 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 455 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 456 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 457 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 459 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root 461 5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 463 In this case the flow comprises: 465 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 467 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 468 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 469 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). 471 In this case the 6LBR inserts RPI header and sends the packet down, 472 the 6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID 473 for multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed. 475 No IP-in-IP header is required. 477 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 478 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 479 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 480 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 481 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 482 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 483 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 484 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 485 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 487 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf 489 5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 491 In this case the flow comprises: 493 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 495 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 496 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 497 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). 499 As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this 500 situation is identical to the previous scenario. 502 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 503 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | 504 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 505 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 506 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | 507 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 508 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 509 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI (Ignored) | 510 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 512 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware- 513 leaf 515 5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 517 In this case the flow comprises: 519 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) 521 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 522 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 523 packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For 524 example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the 525 IPv6 node. 527 When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR_1, the 6LR_1 will 528 insert a RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 529 IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be addressed to the next hop, or to the root. 530 The root removes the header and processes the packet. 532 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 533 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 534 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 535 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 536 | headers | | | | | 537 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 538 | headers | | | | | 539 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 540 | headers | | | | | 541 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 542 | headers | | | | | 543 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | 544 | headers | | | | | 545 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 547 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 548 root 550 5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 552 RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be 553 ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware. 555 In this case the flow comprises: 557 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet 559 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 560 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 561 packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. 563 No IP-in-IP header is required. 565 Note: In this use case we use a node as leaf, but this use case can 566 be also applicable to any RPL-node type (e.g. 6LR) 568 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 569 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | 570 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 571 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | 572 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 573 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 574 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- | 575 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI | RPI (Ignored) | 576 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 578 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 579 Internet 581 5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 583 In this case the flow comprises: 585 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 587 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 588 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 589 packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). 591 When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added 592 in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the 593 rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is 594 removed and the packet processed. 596 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 597 | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 598 | | t | | | | 599 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 600 | Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 601 | headers | | IP(RPI) | | | 602 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 603 | headers | | | | | 604 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 605 | headers | | | | | 606 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 607 | headers | | | | | 608 | Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- | 609 | d | | | | | 610 | headers | | | | | 611 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 613 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware- 614 leaf 616 5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 618 In this case the flow comprises: 620 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> 621 Internet 623 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 624 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 625 packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. 627 The 6LR_1 (i=1) node will add an IP-in-IP(RPI) header addressed 628 either to the root, or hop-by-hop such that the root can remove the 629 RPI header before passing upwards. 631 The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero 632 so that the packet can be better compressed through the LLN. The 633 6LBR will set the flow label of the packet to a non-zero value when 634 sending to the Internet. 636 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 637 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | 638 | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | 639 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 640 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 641 | d | | IP(RPI) | | | | 642 | headers | | | | | | 643 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 644 | headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | 645 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 646 | added | | | | | | 647 | headers | | | | | | 648 | Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 649 | d | | | IP(RPI) | | | 650 | headers | | | | | | 651 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 652 | ed | | | | | | 653 | headers | | | | | | 654 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 656 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 657 Internet 659 5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf 661 In this case the flow comprises: 663 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 665 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 666 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 667 packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 6LR_i 668 updates the rank in the RPI. 670 The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IP-in-IP header. 671 The IP-in-IP can be addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf, leaving the 672 RPI inside. 674 The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IP-in-IP header to zero 675 in order to aid in compression. 677 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 678 | Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | 679 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 680 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 681 | headers | | | | | 682 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | 683 | headers | | | | | 684 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 685 | headers | | | | | 686 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 687 | headers | | | | | 688 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 689 | headers | | | | (Ignored) | 690 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 692 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- 693 aware-leaf 695 5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 697 In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop optimization for both 698 storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a packet destined 699 to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550]. 701 In this case the flow comprises: 703 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN 705 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the common parent 706 (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers 707 (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common parent 708 (6LR_x). 710 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 711 destination 6LN. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of 712 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the common parent 713 (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 715 This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent, 716 the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the 717 rank). 719 While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or 720 remove the RPI, so no IP-in-IP headers are necessary. This may be 721 done regardless of where the destination is, as the included RPI will 722 be ignored by the receiver. 724 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 725 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x (common | 6LR_id | 6LN | 726 | | src | | parent) | | dst | 727 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 728 | Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | 729 | headers | | | | | | 730 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 731 | headers | | | | | | 732 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 733 | headers | | | | | | 734 | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | 735 | headers | | | | | | 736 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 737 | headers | | | | | | 738 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 740 Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 741 aware-leaf 743 5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 745 In this case the flow comprises: 747 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 748 6LN (IPv6) 750 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (6LN) to the common 751 parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of 752 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common 753 parent (6LR_x). 755 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 756 destination not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", 757 m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the 758 common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 760 This situation is identical to the previous situation Section 5.9 761 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 762 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x(common | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 763 | | src | | parent) | | | 764 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 765 | Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | 766 | headers | | | | | | 767 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 768 | headers | | | | | | 769 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 770 | headers | | | | | | 771 | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | 772 | headers | | | | | | 773 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI(Ignored) | 774 | headers | | | | | | 775 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 777 Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 778 aware-leaf 780 5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 782 In this case the flow comprises: 784 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 785 6LR_id --> 6LN 787 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-aware 6LN 788 (IPv6)) to the common parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n 789 is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from source 790 to the common parent. 792 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 793 destination 6LN. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of 794 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the common parent 795 (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 797 The 6LR_ia (ia=1) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and 798 inserts and the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 799 IP-in-IP header is addressed to the destination 6LN. 801 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 802 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_ia | common | 6LR_id | 6LN | 803 | | | | parent | | | 804 | | | | (6LRx) | | | 805 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 806 | Insert | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 807 | ed hea | | IP(RPI) | | | | 808 | ders | | | | | | 809 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | 810 | d head | | | | | IP(RPI) | 811 | ers | | | | | | 812 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 813 | added | | | | | | 814 | header | | | | | | 815 | s | | | | | | 816 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 817 | ed hea | | | IP(RPI) | IP(RPI) | | 818 | ders | | | | | | 819 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 820 | hed he | | | | | | 821 | aders | | | | | | 822 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 824 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 825 RPL-aware-leaf 827 5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 829 In this case the flow comprises: 831 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_1--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 832 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 dst) 834 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-aware 6LN 835 (IPv6 src)) to the root (6LBR) In this case, "1 < ia >= n", n is the 836 number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from IPv6 src to 837 the root. 839 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to destination 840 (IPv6 dst). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of routers 841 (6LR) that the packet go through from the root to destination (IPv6 842 dst). 844 This flow is identical to Section 5.11 846 The 6LR_1 receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and inserts the 847 RPI header (RPIa) encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IPv6-in- 848 IPv6 header is addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LBR remove the IPv6-in- 849 IPv6 header and insert another one (RPIb) with destination to 6LR_m 850 node. 852 One of the side-effects of inserting IP-in-IP RPI header at 6LR_1, is 853 that now all the packets will go through the 6LBR, even though there 854 exists a shorter P2P path to the destination 6LN in storing mode. 855 One possible solution is given by the work in 856 [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection]. Once we have route projection, the 857 root can find that this traffic deserves optimization (based on 858 volume and path length, or additional knowledge on that particular 859 flow) and project a DAO into 6LR_1. 861 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 862 | Heade | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_m | IPv | 863 | r | 6 | | | | | 6 | 864 | | src | | | | | dst | 865 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 866 | Inser | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 867 | ted h | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | | 868 | eader | | | | | | | 869 | s | | | | | | | 870 | Remov | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 871 | ed he | | | | | | | 872 | aders | | | | | | | 873 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 874 | added | | | | | IP(RPI_b) | | 875 | heade | | | | | | | 876 | rs | | | | | | | 877 | Modif | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 878 | ied h | | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | 879 | eader | | | | | | | 880 | s | | | | | | | 881 | Untou | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 882 | ched | | | | | | | 883 | heade | | | | | | | 884 | rs | | | | | | | 885 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 887 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 888 non-RPL-aware-leaf 890 6. Non Storing mode 891 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 892 | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | 893 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 894 | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- | 895 | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | -- | 896 | root to ~Raf | No | Yes | Yes | 6LR | 897 | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root | 898 | Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | 899 | Int to Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | dst | 900 | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | 901 | Int to ~Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | 6LR | 902 | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/dst | 903 | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | 904 | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LN | 905 | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | 906 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 908 Table 2: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP 909 encapsulation 911 6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 913 In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send 914 traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included to avoid/detect 915 loops. 917 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) 919 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 920 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 921 packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). 923 This situation is the same case as storing mode. 925 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 926 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 927 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 928 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 929 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 930 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 931 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 932 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 933 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 935 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 936 root 938 6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 940 In this case the flow comprises: 942 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 944 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 945 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 946 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). 948 The 6LBR will insert an RH3, and may optionally insert an RPI header. 949 No IP-in-IP header is necessary as the traffic originates with an RPL 950 aware node, the 6LBR. The destination is known to RPL-aware because, 951 the root knows the whole topology in non-storing mode. 953 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 954 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 955 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 956 | Inserted headers | (opt: RPI), RH3 | -- | -- | 957 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RH3,RPI | 958 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 959 | Modified headers | -- | RH3 | -- | 960 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 961 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 963 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware- 964 leaf 966 6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 968 In this case the flow comprises: 970 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 972 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 973 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 974 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). 976 In 6LBR the RH3 is added, modified in each intermediate 6LR (6LR_1 977 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n), but left 978 there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not 979 understand it will ignore it (following 2460bis), thus encapsulation 980 is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the 981 root, the 6LBR is able to address the IP-in-IP header to the last 982 6LR. 984 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 985 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 | 986 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 987 | Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- | 988 | headers | RH3 | | | | 989 | Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- | 990 | headers | | | | | 991 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 992 | headers | | | | | 993 | Modified | -- | (opt: RPI), | (opt: RPI), | -- | 994 | headers | | RH3 | RH3 | | 995 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 996 | headers | | | | | 997 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 999 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL- 1000 aware-leaf 1002 6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 1004 In this case the flow comprises: 1006 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) 1008 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1009 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1010 packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For 1011 example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the 1012 IPv6 node. 1014 In this case the RPI is added by the first 6LR (6LR1), encapsulated 1015 in an IP-in-IP header, and is modified in the followings 6LRs. The 1016 RPI and entire packet is consumed by the root. 1018 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1019 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 1020 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1021 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 1022 | headers | | | | | 1023 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 1024 | headers | | | | | 1025 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1026 | headers | | | | | 1027 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 1028 | headers | | | | | 1029 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1030 | headers | | | | | 1031 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1033 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1034 root 1036 6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 1038 In this case the flow comprises: 1040 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet 1042 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1043 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1044 packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. 1046 This case is identical to storing-mode case. 1048 The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression, and 1049 the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the 1050 Internet. 1052 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1053 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | 1054 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1055 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | 1056 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1057 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1058 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- | 1059 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI | RPI (Ignored) | 1060 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1062 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 1063 Internet 1065 6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 1067 In this case the flow comprises: 1069 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 1071 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1072 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1073 packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). 1075 The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and 1076 address of the target node, it can address the IP-in-IP header to 1077 that node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to 1078 aid compression. 1080 The RPI may be added or not, it is optional. 1082 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1083 | Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 1084 | | net | | | | 1085 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1086 | Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | 1087 | ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | 1088 | ders | | | | | 1089 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | 1090 | d head | | | | pt:RPI) | 1091 | ers | | | | | 1092 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1093 | added | | | | | 1094 | header | | | | | 1095 | s | | | | | 1096 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | 1097 | ed hea | | | pt:RPI) | | 1098 | ders | | | | | 1099 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1100 | hed he | | | | | 1101 | aders | | | | | 1102 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1104 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL- 1105 aware-leaf 1107 6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 1109 In this case the flow comprises: 1111 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> 1112 Internet 1113 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1114 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1115 packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. e.g 6LR_1 (i=1). 1117 In this case the flow label is recommended to be zero in the IPv6 1118 node. As RPL headers are added in the IPv6 node, the first 6LR 1119 (6LR_1) will add an RPI header inside a new IP-in-IP header. The IP- 1120 in-IP header will be addressed to the root. This case is identical 1121 to the storing-mode case (Section 5.7). 1123 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1124 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | 1125 | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | 1126 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1127 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 1128 | d | | IP(RPI) | | | | 1129 | headers | | | | | | 1130 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1131 | headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | 1132 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1133 | added | | | | | | 1134 | headers | | | | | | 1135 | Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1136 | d | | | IP(RPI) | | | 1137 | headers | | | | | | 1138 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1139 | ed | | | | | | 1140 | headers | | | | | | 1141 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1143 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1144 Internet 1146 6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1148 In this case the flow comprises: 1150 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 1152 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1153 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1154 packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 1156 The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR 1157 will know the path, and will recognize that the final node is not an 1158 RPL capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from 1159 the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IP-in-IP header 1160 destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will set to zero the flow 1161 label upon entry in order to aid compression. 1163 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1164 | Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i(i=2,. | IPv6 | 1165 | | net | | | .,n) | | 1166 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1167 | Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | -- | 1168 | ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | | 1169 | ders | | | | | | 1170 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1171 | d head | | | | IP(RH3, | | 1172 | ers | | | | RPI) | | 1173 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1174 | added | | | | | | 1175 | header | | | | | | 1176 | s | | | | | | 1177 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1178 | ed hea | | | IP(RH3, | IP(RH3, | | 1179 | ders | | | RPI) | RPI) | | 1180 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 1181 | hed he | | | | | | 1182 | aders | | | | | | 1183 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1185 NonStoring: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- 1186 aware-leaf 1188 6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 1190 In this case the flow comprises: 1192 6LN src --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN dst 1194 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1195 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1196 packet go through from 6LN to the root. 1198 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1199 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1200 routers (6LR). 1202 This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating 1203 node will add an RPI header to the original packet, and send the 1204 packet upwards. 1206 The originating node SHOULD put the RPI into an IP-in-IP header 1207 addressed to the root, so that the 6LBR can remove that header. If 1208 it does not, then additional resources are wasted on the way down to 1209 carry the useless RPI option. 1211 The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it 1212 add an IP-in-IP header. It SHOULD be able to remove the RPI, as it 1213 was contained in an IP-in-IP header addressed to it. Otherwise, 1214 there MAY be an RPI header buried inside the inner IP header, which 1215 should get ignored. 1217 Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially 1218 non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario 1219 Section 6.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR. 1221 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1222 | Header | 6LN src | 6LR_ | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN dst | 1223 | | | ia | | d | | 1224 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1225 | Inserte | IP-in- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3 | -- | -- | 1226 | d | IP(RPI1) | | to 6LN, opt | | | 1227 | headers | | | RPI2) | | | 1228 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | 1229 | headers | | | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | 1230 | | | | | | RPI2) | 1231 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1232 | added | | | | | | 1233 | headers | | | | | | 1234 | Modifie | -- | RPI1 | -- | RPI2 | -- | 1235 | d | | | | | | 1236 | headers | | | | | | 1237 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1238 | ed | | | | | | 1239 | headers | | | | | | 1240 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1242 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 1243 aware-leaf 1245 6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1247 In this case the flow comprises: 1249 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware (IPv6) 1251 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1252 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1253 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1254 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1255 routers (6LR). 1257 As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert an RPI (RPI_1) header 1258 which MUST be in an IP-in-IP header addressed to the root so that the 1259 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a 1260 new IP-in-IP header addressed to the 6LN destination node. The RPI 1261 is optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2). 1263 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1264 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 1265 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1266 | Insert | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1267 | ed hea | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | | | 1268 | ders | | | RPI_2) | | | 1269 | Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1270 | d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, | | 1271 | ers | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1272 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1273 | added | | | | | | 1274 | header | | | | | | 1275 | s | | | | | | 1276 | Modifi | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1277 | ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | | 1278 | ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1279 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | opt | 1280 | hed he | | | | | RPI_ | 1281 | aders | | | | | 2 | 1282 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1284 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 1285 not-RPL-aware-leaf 1287 6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 1289 In this case the flow comprises: 1291 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 1292 6LN 1294 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1295 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1297 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1298 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1299 routers (6LR). 1301 This scenario is mostly identical to the previous one. The RPI is 1302 added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IP-in-IP header addressed to 1303 the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add it's own IP-in-IP 1304 header containing an RH3 header and optional RPI (RPI_2). 1306 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1307 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN | 1308 | | 6 | | | | | 1309 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1310 | Insert | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1311 | ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | | 1312 | ders | | | RPI_2) | | | 1313 | Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | 1314 | d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | 1315 | ers | | | | | opt RPI_2) | 1316 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1317 | added | | | | | | 1318 | header | | | | | | 1319 | s | | | | | | 1320 | Modifi | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1321 | ed hea | | | | IP(RH3, | | 1322 | ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1323 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1324 | hed he | | | | | | 1325 | aders | | | | | | 1326 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1328 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1329 RPL-aware-leaf 1331 6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1333 In this case the flow comprises: 1335 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 1336 not-RPL-aware (IPv6 dst) 1338 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1339 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1341 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1342 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1343 routers (6LR). 1345 This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases. 1347 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1348 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 1349 | | 6 | | | | dst | 1350 | | src | | | | | 1351 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1352 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- | -- | 1353 | d | | IP(RPI_1) | | | | 1354 | headers | | | | | | 1355 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1356 | headers | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | 1357 | | | | | RPI_2) | | 1358 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1359 | added | | | | | | 1360 | headers | | | | | | 1361 | Modifie | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1362 | d | | | | | | 1363 | headers | | | | | | 1364 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1365 | ed | | | | | | 1366 | headers | | | | | | 1367 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1369 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1370 not-RPL-aware-leaf 1372 7. Observations about the cases 1374 7.1. Storing mode 1376 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows that the hop-by-hop IP-in-IP 1377 header can be compressed using IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IP-in-IP-6LoRH) header 1378 as described in Section 7 of the document. 1380 There are potential significant advantages to having a single code 1381 path that always processes IP-in-IP headers with no options. 1383 Thanks to the relaxation of the RFC2460 rule about discarding unknown 1384 Hop-by-Hop options, there is no longer any uncertainty about when to 1385 use an IPIP header in the storing mode case. The RPI header SHOULD 1386 always be added when 6LRs originate packets (without IPIP headers), 1387 and IPIP headers should always be added (addressed to the root when 1388 on the way up, to the end-host when on the way down) when a 6LR finds 1389 it needs to insert an RPI header. 1391 In order to support the above two cases with full generality, the 1392 different situations (always do IP-in-IP vs never use IP-in-IP) 1393 should be signaled in the RPL protocol itself. 1395 7.2. Non-Storing mode 1397 In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is 1398 much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the 1399 connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the 1400 root node. 1402 The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will 1403 receive a DAO about that node from the 6LN immediately above that 1404 node. This means that the non-storing mode case can avoid ever using 1405 hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers. 1407 Unlike in the storing mode case, there is no need for all nodes to 1408 know about the existence of non-RPL aware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs 1409 to change when there are non-RPL aware nodes. Further, in the non- 1410 storing case, the 6LBR is informed by the DAOs when there are non-RPL 1411 aware nodes. 1413 8. 6LoRH Compression cases 1415 The [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method 1416 for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6. 1418 In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non- 1419 RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise 1420 an IP-in-IP and RPI compression headers. The type of this case is 1421 critical since IP-in-IP is encapsulating a RPI header. 1423 +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ 1424 |1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC | 1425 +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ 1427 Figure 3: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI). 1429 9. IANA Considerations 1431 There are no IANA considerations related to this document. 1433 10. Security Considerations 1435 The security considerations covering of [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] apply 1436 when the packets get into RPL Domain. 1438 The IPIP mechanism described in this document is much more limited 1439 than the general mechanism described in [RFC2473]. The willingness 1440 of each node in the LLN to decapsulate packets and forward them could 1441 be exploited by nodes to disguise the origin of an attack. 1443 Nodes outside of the LLN will need to pass IPIP traffic through the 1444 RPL root to perform this attack. To counter, the RPL root SHOULD 1445 either restrict ingress of IPIP packets (the simpler solution), or it 1446 SHOULD do a deep packet inspection wherein it walks the IP header 1447 extension chain until it can inspect the upper-layer-payload as 1448 described in [RFC7045]. In particular, the RPL root SHOULD do BCP38 1449 ([RFC2827]) processing on the source addresses of all IP headers that 1450 it examines in both directions. 1452 Note: there are some situations where a prefix will spread across 1453 multiple LLNs via mechanisms such as described in 1454 [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]. In this case the BCP38 filtering 1455 needs to take this into account. 1457 Nodes with the LLN can use the IPIP mechanism to mount an attack on 1458 another part of the LLN, while disguising the origin of the attack. 1459 The mechanism can even be abused to make it appear that the attack is 1460 coming from outside the LLN, and unless countered, this could be used 1461 to mount a Distributed Denial Of Service attack upon nodes elsewhere 1462 in the Internet. See [DDOS-KREBS] for an example of such attacks 1463 already seen in the real world. 1465 While a typical LLN may be a very poor origin for attack traffic (as 1466 the networks tend to be very slow, and the nodes often have very low 1467 duty cycles) given enough nodes, they could still have a significant 1468 impact, particularly if the attack was on another LLN! Additionally, 1469 some uses of RPL involve large backbone ISP scale equipment 1470 [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane], which may be equipped with 1471 multiple 100Gb/s interfaces. 1473 Blocking or careful filtering of IPIP traffic entering the LLN as 1474 described above will make sure that any attack that is mounted must 1475 originate compromised nodes within the LLN. The use of BCP38 1476 filtering at the RPL root on egress traffic will both alert the 1477 operator to the existence of the attack, as well as drop the attack 1478 traffic. As the RPL network is typically numbered from a single 1479 prefix, which is itself assigned by RPL, BCP38 filtering involves a 1480 single prefix comparison and should be trivial to automatically 1481 configure. 1483 There are some scenarios where IPIP traffic SHOULD be allowed to pass 1484 through the RPL root, such as the IPIP mediated communications 1485 between a new Pledge and the Join Registrar/Coordinator (JRC) when 1486 using [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] and 1487 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]. This is the case for the 1488 RPL root to do careful filtering: it occurs only when the Join 1489 Coordinator is not co-located inside the RPL root. 1491 With the above precautions, an attack using IPIP tunnels will be by a 1492 node within the LLN on another node within the LLN. Such an attack 1493 could, of course, be done directly. An attack of this kind is 1494 meaningful only if the source addresses are either fake or if the 1495 point is to amplify return traffic. Such an attack, could also be 1496 done without the use of IPIP headers using forged source addresses. 1497 If the attack requires bi-directional communication, then IPIP 1498 provides no advantages. 1500 [RFC2473] suggests that tunnel entry and exit points can be secured, 1501 via the "Use IPsec". This solution has all the problems that 1502 [RFC5406] goes into. In an LLN such a solution would degenerate into 1503 every node having a tunnel with every other node. It would provide a 1504 small amount of origin address authentication at a very high cost; 1505 doing BCP38 at every node (linking layer-3 addresses to layer-2 1506 addresses, and to already present layer-2 cryptographic mechanisms) 1507 would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment where hostile 1508 nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN. 1510 The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways 1511 to the IPIP header. In non-storing networks where an RH3 may be 1512 acted upon, packets arriving into the LLN will be encapsulated with 1513 an IPIP header to add the needed RH3 header. As such, the attacker's 1514 RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it reaches the end 1515 host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host SHOULD be suspicious 1516 about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have not yet been 1517 processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header. 1519 In addition, the LLN will likely use [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 1520 to compress the IPIP and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the 1521 RPL-root will see the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the 1522 packet if the RH3 header has not been completely consumed. A 1523 consumed (inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows 1524 from one LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per 1525 the discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be 1526 removed. However, there is no case described in this document where 1527 an RH3 is inserted in a non-storing network on traffic that is 1528 leaving the LLN, but this document SHOULD NOT preclude such a future 1529 innovation. It should just be noted that an incoming RH3 must be 1530 fully consumed, or very carefully inspected. 1532 The RPI header, if permitted to enter the LLN, could be used by an 1533 attacker to change the priority of a packet by selecting a different 1534 RPL instanceID, perhaps one with a higher energy cost, for instance. 1535 It could also be that not all nodes are reachable in an LLN using the 1536 default instanceID, but a change of instanceID would permit an 1537 attacker to bypass such filtering. Like the RH3, an RPI header is to 1538 be inserted by the RPL root on traffic entering the LLN by first 1539 inserting an IPIP header. The attacker's RPI header therefore will 1540 not be seen by the network. Upon reaching the destination node the 1541 RPI header has no further meaning and is just skipped; the presence 1542 of a second RPI header will have no meaning to the end node as the 1543 packet has already been identified as being at it's final 1544 destination. 1546 The RH3 and RPI headers could be abused by an attacker inside of the 1547 network to route packets on non-obvious ways, perhaps eluding 1548 observation. This usage is in fact part of [RFC6997] and can not be 1549 restricted at all. This is a feature, not a bug. 1551 [RFC7416] deals with many other threats to LLNs not directly related 1552 to the use of IPIP headers, and this document does not change that 1553 analysis. 1555 11. Acknowledgments 1557 This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training 1558 Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728). 1560 The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and 1561 comments of (alphabetical order): Robert Cragie, Simon Duquennoy, 1562 Cenk Guendogan, Rahul Jadhav, Peter van der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana 1563 and Thomas Watteyne. 1565 12. References 1567 12.1. Normative References 1569 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] 1570 <>, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) 1571 Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-09 (work in 1572 progress), March 2017. 1574 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1575 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1576 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1577 . 1579 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1580 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 1582 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 1583 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 1584 December 1998, . 1586 [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: 1587 Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source 1588 Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. 1590 [RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec 1591 Version 2", BCP 146, RFC 5406, February 2009. 1593 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., 1594 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, 1595 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for 1596 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, 1597 DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, 1598 . 1600 [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- 1601 Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL 1602 Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, 1603 DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, 1604 . 1606 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 1607 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol 1608 for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, 1609 DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, 1610 . 1612 [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing 1613 of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, 1614 DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, 1615 . 1617 [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., 1618 and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for 1619 the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks 1620 (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, 1621 . 1623 12.2. Informative References 1625 [DDOS-KREBS] 1626 Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by 1627 >145k hacked cameras", September 2016, 1628 . 1631 [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] 1632 Thubert, P., "IPv6 Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo- 1633 backbone-router-03 (work in progress), January 2017. 1635 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] 1636 Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode 1637 of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 (work 1638 in progress), January 2017. 1640 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] 1641 Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf- 1642 6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress), 1643 February 2017. 1645 [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] 1646 Behringer, M., Eckert, T., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic 1647 Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control- 1648 plane-06 (work in progress), March 2017. 1650 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] 1651 Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason, 1652 S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key 1653 Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping- 1654 keyinfra-05 (work in progress), March 2017. 1656 [I-D.ietf-roll-dao-projection] 1657 Thubert, P. and J. Pylakutty, "Root initiated routing 1658 state in RPL", draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-01 (work in 1659 progress), March 2017. 1661 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 1662 Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, 1663 "6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing- 1664 dispatch-05 (work in progress), October 2016. 1666 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet 1667 Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet 1668 Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, 1669 DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 1670 . 1672 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. 1673 Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over 1674 Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", 1675 RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, 1676 . 1678 [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and 1679 J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes 1680 in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, 1681 DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, 1682 . 1684 [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and 1685 Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 1686 2014, . 1688 [Second6TischPlugtest] 1689 "2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", . 1692 Authors' Addresses 1694 Maria Ines Robles 1695 Ericsson 1696 Hirsalantie 11 1697 Jorvas 02420 1698 Finland 1700 Email: maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com 1702 Michael C. Richardson 1703 Sandelman Software Works 1704 470 Dawson Avenue 1705 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 1706 CA 1708 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 1709 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/ 1711 Pascal Thubert 1712 Cisco Systems, Inc 1713 Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille 1714 Batiment T3, Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 1715 France 1717 Email: pthubert@cisco.com