draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-17.txt		draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18.txt
	ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.		ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Huawei		Internet-Draft Huawei
	Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert		Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
	Expires: May 1, 2020 Cisco		Expires: October 17, 2020 Cisco
	R. Sahoo		R. Sahoo
	Z. Cao		Z. Cao
	Huawei		Huawei
	October 29, 2019		April 15, 2020
	Efficient Route Invalidation		Efficient Route Invalidation
	draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-17		draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document explains the problems associated with the current use		This document explains the problems associated with the current use
	of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the requirements for an		of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the requirements for an
	optimized route invalidation messaging scheme. Further a new		optimized route invalidation messaging scheme. Further a new
	proactive route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup		proactive route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup
	Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an		Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an
	optimized route invalidation messaging.		optimized route invalidation messaging.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 8, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 22 ¶
	apply to the message as a whole and options are appended to add		apply to the message as a whole and options are appended to add
	message/use-case specific attributes. As an example, a DAO message		message/use-case specific attributes. As an example, a DAO message
	may be attributed by one or more "RPL Target" options which specify		may be attributed by one or more "RPL Target" options which specify
	the reachability information for the given targets. Similarly, a		the reachability information for the given targets. Similarly, a
	Transit Information option may be associated with a set of RPL Target		Transit Information option may be associated with a set of RPL Target
	options.		options.
	This document specifies a change in the Transit Information Option to		This document specifies a change in the Transit Information Option to
	contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This 'I' flag		contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This 'I' flag
	signals the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of the		signals the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of the
	target node with a RPL Status of 130 indicating that the address has		target node with a RPL Status of 195 indicating that the address has
	moved. The 'I' flag is carried in the Transit Information Option		moved. The 'I' flag is carried in the Transit Information Option
	which augments the reachability information for a given set of RPL		which augments the reachability information for a given set of RPL
	Target(s). Transit Information Option with 'I' flag set should be		Target(s). Transit Information Option with 'I' flag set should be
	carried in the DAO message when route invalidation is sought for the		carried in the DAO message when route invalidation is sought for the
	corresponding target(s).		corresponding target(s).
			Value 195 represents 'E' and 'A' bit in RPL Status to be set as per
			Figure 3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] with the lower 6 bits with
			value 3 indicating 'Moved' as per Table 1 of [RFC8505].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type = 0x06 | Option Length |E|I| Flags | Path Control |		| Type = 0x06 | Option Length |E|I| Flags | Path Control |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Path Sequence | Path Lifetime |		| Path Sequence | Path Lifetime |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: Updated Transit Information Option (New I flag added)		Figure 2: Updated Transit Information Option (New I flag added)
	skipping to change at page 19, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 19, line 44 ¶
	without any protection.		without any protection.
	2. Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus		2. Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus
	secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.		secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.
	3. Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus		3. Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus
	secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.		secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.
	8. Normative References		8. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]		[I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]
	Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",		Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",
	draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-04 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-14 (work in progress),
	September 2019.		April 2020.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,		[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
	Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,		Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
	JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for		JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
	Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,		Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	8 lines changed or deleted		12 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/