draft-ietf-roll-mopex-03.txt   draft-ietf-roll-mopex-04.txt 
ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed. ROLL R.A. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Tech Internet-Draft Huawei Tech
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: October 2, 2021 Cisco Expires: 13 May 2022 Cisco
M. Richardson M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
March 31, 2021 9 November 2021
Mode of Operation extension Mode of Operation extension
draft-ietf-roll-mopex-03 draft-ietf-roll-mopex-04
Abstract Abstract
RPL allows different mode of operations which allows nodes to have a RPL allows different mode of operations which allows nodes to have a
consensus on the basic primitives that must be supported to join the consensus on the basic primitives that must be supported to join the
network. The MOP field in [RFC6550] is of 3 bits and is fast network. The MOP field in [RFC6550] is of 3 bits and is fast
depleting. This document extends the MOP for future use. depleting. This document extends the MOP for future use.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 October 2, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 May 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Extended MOP Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Extended MOP Control Message Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Handling MOPex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Handling MOPex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Use of values 0-6 in the MOPex option . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Use of values 0-6 in the MOPex option . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Extending RPL Control Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Extending RPL Control Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Mode of operation: MOPex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Mode of operation: MOPex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. New options: MOPex and Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. New options: MOPex and Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3. New Registry for Extended-MOP-value . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.3. New Registry for Extended-MOP-value . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.4. Change in RPL Control Option field . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.4. Change in RPL Control Option field . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing RPL [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing
scheme. The protocol creates a DAG-like structure that operates with scheme. The protocol creates a DAG-like structure that operates with
a given "Mode of Operation" (MOP) determining the minimum and a given "Mode of Operation" (MOP) determining the minimum and
skipping to change at page 5, line 11 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
Section 6.7.1 of RFC6550 explains the RPL Control Message Option Section 6.7.1 of RFC6550 explains the RPL Control Message Option
Generic Format. This document extends this format to following: Generic Format. This document extends this format to following:
0 1 2 0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----------- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----------
|X| OptionType| Option Length |Opt Flags|J|I|C| Option Data |X| OptionType| Option Length |Opt Flags|J|I|C| Option Data
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----------- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----------
Figure 2: Extended RPL Option Format Figure 2: Extended RPL Option Format
New fields in extended RPL Control Message Option Format: New fields in extended RPL Control Message Option Format:
'X' bit in Option Type: Value 1 indicates that this is an extended 'X' bit in Option Type: Value 1 indicates that this is an extended
option. If the 'X' flag is set, a 1-byte Option Flags follows the option. If the 'X' flag is set, a 1-byte Option Flags follows the
Option Length field. Option Length field.
Option Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in Option Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in
octets of the option, not including the Option Type and Length octets of the option, not including the Option Type and Length
fields. Option Flags and variable length Option Data fields are fields. Option Flags and variable length Option Data fields are
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
'I' (Ignore) bit in Option Flags: A node that does not understand 'I' (Ignore) bit in Option Flags: A node that does not understand
the Option Type MUST ignore this whole message if the 'I' bit is the Option Type MUST ignore this whole message if the 'I' bit is
set. If the 'I' bit is set then the value of 'J' and 'C' bits are set. If the 'I' bit is set then the value of 'J' and 'C' bits are
irrelevant and the message MUST be ignored. irrelevant and the message MUST be ignored.
Note that this format does not deprecate the previous format, it Note that this format does not deprecate the previous format, it
simply extends it and the new format is applicable only when 2nd bit simply extends it and the new format is applicable only when 2nd bit
('X' flag) of the Option Type is set. Option Type 0x80 to 0xFF are ('X' flag) of the Option Type is set. Option Type 0x80 to 0xFF are
thus applicable only as extended options. thus applicable only as extended options.
+---------+---------+-----------------------------------------------+ +=========+=========+===========================+
| 'J' bit | 'C' bit | Handling | | 'J' bit | 'C' bit | Handling |
+---------+---------+-----------------------------------------------+ +=========+=========+===========================+
| 0 | 0 | Strip off the option, and the node can join | | 0 | 0 | Strip off the option, and |
| | | as 6LR | | | | the node can join as 6LR |
| 0 | 1 | Copy the option, and the node can join as 6LR | +---------+---------+---------------------------+
| 1 | NA | Join as 6LN | | 0 | 1 | Copy the option, and the |
+---------+---------+-----------------------------------------------+ | | | node can join as 6LR |
+---------+---------+---------------------------+
| 1 | NA | Join as 6LN |
+---------+---------+---------------------------+
Table 1: Option Flags handling Table 1: Option Flags handling
If a node receives an unknown Option without 'X' flag set then the If a node receives an unknown Option without 'X' flag set then the
node MUST ignore the option and process the message. The option MUST node MUST ignore the option and process the message. The option MUST
be treated as if J=0, C=0, I=0. be treated as if J=0, C=0, I=0.
5. Implementation Considerations 5. Implementation Considerations
In [RFC6550], it was possible to discard an unsupported DIO-MOP just In [RFC6550], it was possible to discard an unsupported DIO-MOP just
by inspecting the base message. With this document, the MOPex is a by inspecting the base message. With this document, the MOPex is a
different control message option and thus the discarding of the DIO different control message option and thus the discarding of the DIO
skipping to change at page 6, line 40 skipping to change at page 6, line 43
extending Control Options. extending Control Options.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Mode of operation: MOPex 7.1. Mode of operation: MOPex
IANA is requested to assign a new Mode of Operation, named "MOPex" IANA is requested to assign a new Mode of Operation, named "MOPex"
for MOP extension under the RPL registry. The value of 7 is to be for MOP extension under the RPL registry. The value of 7 is to be
assigned from the "Mode of Operation" space [RFC6550] assigned from the "Mode of Operation" space [RFC6550]
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +=======+=============+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +=======+=============+===============+
| 7 | MOPex | This document | | 7 | MOPex | This document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+---------------+
Mode of Operation Table 2: Mode of Operation
7.2. New options: MOPex and Capabilities 7.2. New options: MOPex and Capabilities
A new entry is required for supporting new option "MOPex" in the "RPL A new entry is required for supporting new option "MOPex" in the "RPL
Control Message Options" space [RFC6550]. Control Message Options" space [RFC6550].
+-------+---------+---------------+ +=======+=========+===============+
| Value | Meaning | Reference | | Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------+---------+---------------+ +=======+=========+===============+
| TBD1 | MOPex | This document | | TBD1 | MOPex | This document |
+-------+---------+---------------+ +-------+---------+---------------+
New options Table 3: New options
7.3. New Registry for Extended-MOP-value 7.3. New Registry for Extended-MOP-value
IANA is requested to create a registry for the extended-MOP-value IANA is requested to create a registry for the extended-MOP-value
(MOPex). This registry should be located in TODO. New MOPex values (MOPex). This registry should be located in TODO. New MOPex values
may be allocated only by an IETF review. Currently no values are may be allocated only by an IETF review. Currently no values are
defined by this document. Each value is tracked with the following defined by this document. Each value is tracked with the following
qualities: qualities:
o MOPex value * MOPex value
o Description * Description
o Defining RFC * Defining RFC
7.4. Change in RPL Control Option field 7.4. Change in RPL Control Option field
Section 4 of this document specifies MSB of the RPL Control Option to Section 4 of this document specifies MSB of the RPL Control Option to
be used as a bit to indicate RPL Extended Control Options. be used as a bit to indicate RPL Extended Control Options.
IANA is requested to reduce the unassigned values range from 0x10 to IANA is requested to reduce the unassigned values range from 0x10 to
0x7f for RPL Control Options. 0x7f for RPL Control Options.
IANA is requested to create a new registry for RPL Extended Control IANA is requested to create a new registry for RPL Extended Control
Options indicating values 0x80 to 0xff. New values may be allocated Options indicating values 0x80 to 0xff. New values may be allocated
only by an IETF Review. Each value is tracked with the following only by an IETF Review. Each value is tracked with the following
qualities: qualities:
o Value * Value
o Meaning * Meaning
o Defining RFC * Defining RFC
The value could be in the range of 0x80 to 0xff. The value could be in the range of 0x80 to 0xff.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The options defined in this document are carried in the base message The options defined in this document are carried in the base message
objects as defined in [RFC6550]. The RPL control message options are objects as defined in [RFC6550]. The RPL control message options are
protected by the same security mechanisms that protect the base protected by the same security mechanisms that protect the base
messages. messages.
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 36
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities] [I-D.ietf-roll-capabilities]
Jadhav, R., Thubert, P., Richardson, M., and R. Sahoo, Jadhav, R. A., Thubert, P., Richardson, M., and R. N.
"RPL Capabilities", draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-07 (work Sahoo, "RPL Capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-
in progress), September 2020. Draft, draft-ietf-roll-capabilities-09, 9 November 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-
capabilities-09.txt>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor) Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
Huawei Tech Huawei Tech
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield, Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 Bangalore 560037
Karnataka
India India
Phone: +91-080-49160700 Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Pascal Thubert Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254 06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
France France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34 Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Michael Richardson Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/