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/