--- 1/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-08.txt 2018-10-14 12:13:08.118387586 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09.txt 2018-10-14 12:13:08.154388453 -0700 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert -Expires: April 3, 2019 Cisco +Expires: April 17, 2019 Cisco R. Sahoo Z. Cao Huawei - September 30, 2018 + October 14, 2018 Efficient Route Invalidation - draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-08 + draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-09 Abstract This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging used in RPL for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve route invalidation efficiency. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -25,73 +25,71 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 3, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Why NPDAO is important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2. Problems with current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.1. Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . . 6 - 2.2. Invalidate routes of dependent nodes . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2. Problems with current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.1. Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . . 5 + 2.2. Invalidate routes of dependent nodes . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Possible route downtime caused by async operation of NPDAO and DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Req#1: Remove messaging dependency on link to the previous parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent - switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.3. Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic 7 - 4. Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.1. Change in RPL route invalidation semantics . . . . . . . 7 + switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3. Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic 6 + 4. Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4.1. Change in RPL route invalidation semantics . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Transit Information Option changes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.1. Secure DCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.2. DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.3. Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK) 10 4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4.1. Dependent Nodes invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4.2. NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4.3. DCO with multiple preferred parents . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Example Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Example DCO Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. Example DCO Messaging with multiple preferred parents . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Introduction RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks) specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing scheme. RPL has an optional messaging in the form of DAO (Destination Advertisement @@ -587,43 +585,34 @@ 1. Unsecured: In this mode, it is expected that the RPL control messages are secured by other security mechanisms, such as link- layer security. In this mode, the RPL control messages, including DCO, DCO-ACK, do not have Security sections. 2. Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode. 3. Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode. -8. References - -8.1. Normative References +8. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, . -8.2. Informative References - - [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] - Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode - of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-14 (work - in progress), April 2018. - Appendix A. Example Messaging A.1. Example DCO Messaging In Figure 1, node (D) switches its parent from (B) to (C). The sequence of actions is as follows: 1. Node D switches its parent from node B to node C 2. D sends a regular DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1) in the updated path to C