draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-08.txt   draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-09.txt 
ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft L. Zhao Internet-Draft L. Zhao
Updates: 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 8138 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track 8 July 2020 Intended status: Standards Track 27 July 2020
Expires: 9 January 2021 Expires: 28 January 2021
A RPL DODAG Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header A RPL DODAG Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header
draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-08 draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-09
Abstract Abstract
This document updates RFC 8138 and RFC 6550 by defining a bit in the This document updates RFC 8138 by defining a bit in the RPL DODAG
RPL DODAG Configuration Option to indicate whether RFC 8138 Configuration Option to indicate whether compression is used within
compression is used within the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior the RPL Instance, and specify the behavior of RFC 8138-capable nodes
of RFC 8138-capable nodes when the bit is set and reset. when the bit is set and reset.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 9 January 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 January 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The RPL DODAG Configuration Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Updating RFC 8138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Rolling Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The packet compression technique defined in [RFC8138] can only be The packet compression technique defined in [RFC8138] can only be
activated in a RPL [RFC6550] network when all the nodes support it. activated in a RPL [RFC6550] network when all the nodes support it.
Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as leaf-only would fail to Otherwise, a non-capable node acting as leaf-only would fail to
communicate, and acting as a router it would drop the compressed communicate, and acting as a router it would drop the compressed
packets and black-hole a portion of the network. packets and black-hole a portion of the network.
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| Flags |A| ... | | Type = 0x04 |Opt Length = 14| Flags |A| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| ... | | ... |
Figure 1: DODAG Configuration Option (Partial View) Figure 1: DODAG Configuration Option (Partial View)
This specification defines a new flag "Enable RFC8138 Compression" This specification defines a new flag "Enable RFC8138 Compression"
(T). The "T" flag is set to turn-on the use of the compression of (T). The "T" flag is set to turn-on the use of the compression of
RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within the DODAG. The new "T" flag is RPL artifacts with [RFC8138] within the DODAG. The new "T" flag is
encoded in one of the reserved bits in the RPL DODAG Configuration encoded in the Flags field in the RPL DODAG Configuration Option.
Option. The suggested bit position of the "T" flag is indicated in The suggested bit position of the "T" flag is indicated in Section 6.
Section 6.
/[RFC6550] states, [RFC6550] states, when referring to the DODAG [RFC6550] states, when referring to the DODAG Configuration Option,
Configuration Option, that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT that "Nodes other than the DODAG Root MUST NOT modify this
modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option".
option". Therefore, even a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as Therefore, a legacy parent propagates the "T" flag as set by the Root
set by the Root whether it supports this specification or not. So whether it supports this specification or not. So when the "T" flag
when the "T" flag is set, it is transparently flooded to all the is set, it is transparently flooded to all the nodes in the DODAG.
nodes in the DODAG.
Section 6.3.1. of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6550] defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in
in the DIO Base Object. The new "T" flag is defined only for MOP the DIO Base Object. For MOP values 0 to 6, the use of compression
value between 0 to 6. depends on the "T" flag as specified in this document. A MOP value
of 7 and above MUST use compression by default and ignore the setting
of the "T" flag.
4. Updating RFC 8138 4. Updating RFC 8138
A node SHOULD source packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138] A node SHOULD source packets in the compressed form using [RFC8138]
if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behaviour can be overridden if and only if the "T" flag is set. This behaviour can be overridden
by e.g., configuration or network management. Overriding may be by e.g., configuration or network management. Overriding may be
needed e.g., to cope with a legacy implementations of the Root that needed e.g., to cope with a legacy implementations of the Root that
supports [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the "T" supports [RFC8138] but not this specification and cannot set the "T"
flag. flag.
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
able to handle compressed packets in the compressed form. A node able to handle compressed packets in the compressed form. A node
that cannot do so may remain connected to the network as a RUL, but that cannot do so may remain connected to the network as a RUL, but
how the node is modified to turn into a RUL is out of scope. how the node is modified to turn into a RUL is out of scope.
5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating 5.2. Inconsistent State While Migrating
When the "T" flag is turned on by the Root, the information slowly When the "T" flag is turned on by the Root, the information slowly
percolates through the DODAG as the DIO gets propagated. Some nodes percolates through the DODAG as the DIO gets propagated. Some nodes
will see the flag and start sourcing packets in the compressed form will see the flag and start sourcing packets in the compressed form
while other nodes in the same RPL DODAG are still not aware of it. while other nodes in the same RPL DODAG are still not aware of it.
Conversely, in non-storing mode, the Root will start using [RFC8138] In non-storing mode, the Root will start using [RFC8138] with a
with a Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) that routes all the Source Routing Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) that routes all the way to
way to the parent router or to the leaf. the parent router or to the leaf.
To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL DODAG in the form To ensure that a packet is forwarded across the RPL DODAG in the form
in which it was generated, it is required that all the RPL nodes in which it was generated, it is required that all the RPL nodes
support [RFC8138] at the time of the switch. support [RFC8138] at the time of the switch.
Setting the "T" flag is ultimately the responsibility of the Network Setting the "T" flag is ultimately the responsibility of the Network
Administrator. The expectation is that the network management or Administrator. The expectation is that the network management or
upgrading tools in place enable the Network Administrator to know upgrading tools in place enable the Network Administrator to know
when all the nodes that may join a DODAG were migrated. In the case when all the nodes that may join a DODAG were migrated. In the case
of a RPL instance with multiple Roots, all nodes that participate to of a RPL instance with multiple Roots, all nodes that participate to
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 skipping to change at page 7, line 19
as follows: as follows:
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference | | Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 (suggested) | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | THIS RFC | | 2 (suggested) | Turn on RFC8138 Compression (T) | THIS RFC |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+ +---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: New DODAG Configuration Option Flag Table 1: New DODAG Configuration Option Flag
The DODAG Configuration Option Flags defined so far will be obsolete
for RPL Mode of Operation (MOP) above and including 7.
IANA is requested to update the name of the Registry from "DODAG
Configuration Option Flags" to "DODAG Configuration Option Flags for
RPL MOP 0..6".
When MOP values of 7 and more are defined, a new registry will be
needed.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in First of all, it is worth noting that with [RFC6550], every node in
the LLN that is RPL-aware can inject any RPL-based attack in the the LLN that is RPL-aware can inject any RPL-based attack in the
network. A trust model has to be put in place in an effort to network. A trust model has to be put in place in an effort to
exclude rogue nodes from participating to the RPL and the 6LoWPAN exclude rogue nodes from participating to the RPL and the 6LoWPAN
signaling, as well as from the data packet exchange. This trust signaling, as well as from the data packet exchange. This trust
model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the
Link-Layer security. This is a generic RPL and 6LoWPAN requirement, Link-Layer security. This is a generic RPL and 6LoWPAN requirement,
see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505]. see Req5.1 in Appendix of [RFC8505].
skipping to change at page 8, line 40 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
[RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.
[RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
"IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>. April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[UNAWARE-LEAVES]
Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-
leaves-18, 12 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18>.
10. Informative References 10. Informative References
[RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[UNAWARE-LEAVES]
Thubert, P. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL Leaves",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-
leaves-18, 12 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18>.
[USEofRPLinfo] [USEofRPLinfo]
Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI
Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in- Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-
IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40, Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-40,
25 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- 25 June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
roll-useofrplinfo-40>. roll-useofrplinfo-40>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 38 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/