Root initiated routing state in RPL
draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-16

Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

11.3.  New Subregistry For The RPL Option Flags

   IANA is required to create a subregistry for the 8-bit RPL Option
   Flags field, as detailed in Figure 2, under the "Routing Protocol for
   Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry.  The bits are indexed
   from 0 (leftmost) to 7.  Each bit is tracked with the following
   qualities:

   *  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   *  Indication When Set

   *  Reference

   Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].  The initial
   allocation is as indicated in Table 26:

           +============+======================+===============+
           | Bit number | Indication When Set  | Reference     |
           +============+======================+===============+
           |     0      | Down 'O'             | [RFC6553]     |
           +------------+----------------------+---------------+
           |     1      | Rank-Error (R)       | [RFC6553]     |
           +------------+----------------------+---------------+
           |     2      | Forwarding-Error (F) | [RFC6553]     |
           +------------+----------------------+---------------+
           |     3      | Projected-Route (P)  | This document |
           +------------+----------------------+---------------+

                        Table 23: Initial PDR Flags

11.4.  New RPL Control Codes

   This document extends the IANA Subregistry created by RFC 6550 for
   RPL Control Codes as indicated in Table 24:

          +======+=============================+===============+
          | Code | Description                 | Reference     |
          +======+=============================+===============+
          | 0x09 | Projected DAO Request (PDR) | This document |
          +------+-----------------------------+---------------+
          | 0x0A | PDR-ACK                     | This document |
          +------+-----------------------------+---------------+

                     Table 24: New RPL Control Codes

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

11.5.  New RPL Control Message Options

   This document extends the IANA Subregistry created by RFC 6550 for
   RPL Control Message Options as indicated in Table 25:

          +=======+============================+===============+
          | Value | Meaning                    | Reference     |
          +=======+============================+===============+
          |  0x0B | Stateful VIO(SF-VIO)       | This document |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+
          |  0x0C | Source-Routed VIO(SR-VIO)  | This document |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+
          |  0x0D | Sibling Information option | This document |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+

                  Table 25: RPL Control Message Options

11.6.  SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request Flags

   IANA is required to create a registry for the 8-bit Projected DAO
   Request (PDR) Flags field.  Each bit is tracked with the following
   qualities:

   *  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   *  Capability description

   *  Reference

   Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].  The initial
   allocation is as indicated in Table 26:

          +============+========================+===============+
          | Bit number | Capability description | Reference     |
          +============+========================+===============+
          |     0      | PDR-ACK request (K)    | This document |
          +------------+------------------------+---------------+
          |     1      | Requested path should  | This document |
          |            | be redundant (R)       |               |
          +------------+------------------------+---------------+

                        Table 26: Initial PDR Flags

11.7.  SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags

   IANA is required to create an subregistry for the 8-bit PDR-ACK Flags
   field.  Each bit is tracked with the following qualities:

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

   *  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   *  Capability description

   *  Reference

   Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].  No bit is
   currently defined for the PDR-ACK Flags.

11.8.  Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status Values

   IANA is requested to create a Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance
   Status values.

   *  Possible values are 6-bit unsigned integers (0..63).

   *  Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].

   *  Initial allocation is as indicated in Table 27:

            +-------+------------------------+---------------+
            | Value | Meaning                | Reference     |
            +-------+------------------------+---------------+
            | 0     | Unqualified acceptance | This document |
            +-------+------------------------+---------------+

            Table 27: Acceptance values of the PDR-ACK Status

11.9.  Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status Values

   IANA is requested to create a Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Rejection
   Status values.

   *  Possible values are 6-bit unsigned integers (0..63).

   *  Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].

   *  Initial allocation is as indicated in Table 28:

             +-------+-----------------------+---------------+
             | Value | Meaning               | Reference     |
             +-------+-----------------------+---------------+
             | 0     | Unqualified rejection | This document |
             +-------+-----------------------+---------------+

              Table 28: Rejection values of the PDR-ACK Status

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

11.10.  SubRegistry for the Via Information Options Flags

   IANA is requested to create a Subregistry for the 5-bit Via
   Information Options (Via Information Option) Flags field.  Each bit
   is tracked with the following qualities:

   *  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   *  Capability description

   *  Reference

   Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].  No bit is
   currently defined for the Via Information Options (Via Information
   Option) Flags.

11.11.  SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags

   IANA is required to create a registry for the 5-bit Sibling
   Information Option (SIO) Flags field.  Each bit is tracked with the
   following qualities:

   *  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   *  Capability description

   *  Reference

   Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126].  The initial
   allocation is as indicated in Table 29:

    +============+===================================+===============+
    | Bit number | Capability description            | Reference     |
    +============+===================================+===============+
    |     0      | Connectivity is bidirectional (B) | This document |
    +------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+

                       Table 29: Initial SIO Flags

11.12.  New Destination Advertisement Object Flag

   This document modifies the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO)
   Flags" registry initially created in Section 20.11 of [RPL] .

   Section 3.1 also defines one new entry in the Registry as follows:

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

          +---------------+------------------------+-----------+
          | Bit Number    | Capability Description | Reference |
          +---------------+------------------------+-----------+
          | 2 (suggested) | Projected DAO (P)      | THIS RFC  |
          +---------------+------------------------+-----------+

              Table 30: New Destination Advertisement Object
                                (DAO) Flag

11.13.  Error in Projected Route ICMPv6 Code

   In some cases RPL will return an ICMPv6 error message when a message
   cannot be forwarded along a Projected Route.  This ICMPv6 error
   message is "Error in Projected Route".

   IANA has defined an ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry for ICMPv6 Message
   Types.  ICMPv6 Message Type 1 describes "Destination Unreachable"
   codes.  This specification requires that a new code is allocated from
   the ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry for ICMPv6 Message Type 1, for "Error
   in Projected Route", with a suggested code value of 8, to be
   confirmed by IANA.

12.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to acknowledge JP Vasseur, Remy Liubing, James
   Pylakutty and Patrick Wetterwald for their contributions to the ideas
   developed here.

13.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC6282]  Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

   [RPL]      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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.

   [RFC6553]  Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low-
              Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL
              Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6553>.

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

14.  Informative References

   [RFC7102]  Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and
              Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7102>.

   [RFC6997]  Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
              J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
              in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.

   [6TiSCH-ARCHI]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-30, 26 November 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-
              architecture-30>.

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

   [RAW-ARCHI]
              Thubert, P., Papadopoulos, G., and R. Buddenberg,
              "Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture/Framework",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-pthubert-raw-
              architecture-05, 15 November 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pthubert-raw-
              architecture-05>.

   [TURN-ON_RFC8138]
              Thubert, P. and L. Zhao, "A RPL DODAG Configuration Option
              for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-18, 18
              December 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
              roll-turnon-rfc8138-18>.

   [RFC8655]  Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
              "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.

   [RFC8025]  Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch",
              RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8025>.

   [RFC8138]  Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie,
              "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
              (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138,
              April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8138>.

   [USEofRPLinfo]
              Robles, I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI
              Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-
              IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-43,
              10 January 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
              roll-useofrplinfo-43>.

   [PCE]      IETF, "Path Computation Element",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pce/>.

Appendix A.  Applications

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

A.1.  Loose Source Routing

   A RPL implementation operating in a very constrained LLN typically
   uses the Non-Storing Mode of Operation as represented in Figure 12.
   In that mode, a RPL node indicates a parent-child relationship to the
   Root, using a Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) that is unicast
   from the node directly to the Root, and the Root typically builds a
   source routed path to a destination down the DODAG by recursively
   concatenating this information.

              ------+---------
                    |          Internet
                    |
                 +-----+
                 |     | Border Router
                 |     |  (RPL Root)
                 +-----+                      ^     |        |
                    |                         | DAO | ACK    |
              o    o   o    o                 |     |        | Strict
          o o   o  o   o  o  o o   o          |     |        | Source
         o  o o  o o    o   o   o  o  o       |     |        | Route
         o   o    o  o     o  o    o  o  o    |     |        |
        o  o   o  o   o         o   o o       |     v        v
        o          o             o     o
                          LLN

                Figure 12: RPL Non-Storing Mode of operation

   Based on the parent-children relationships expressed in the non-
   storing DAO messages,the Root possesses topological information about
   the whole network, though this information is limited to the
   structure of the DODAG for which it is the destination.  A packet
   that is generated within the domain will always reach the Root, which
   can then apply a source routing information to reach the destination
   if the destination is also in the DODAG.  Similarly, a packet coming
   from the outside of the domain for a destination that is expected to
   be in a RPL domain reaches the Root.

   It results that the Root, or then some associated centralized
   computation engine such as a PCE, can determine the amount of packets
   that reach a destination in the RPL domain, and thus the amount of
   energy and bandwidth that is wasted for transmission, between itself
   and the destination, as well as the risk of fragmentation, any
   potential delays because of a paths longer than necessary (shorter
   paths exist that would not traverse the Root).

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

   As a network gets deep, the size of the source routing header that
   the Root must add to all the downward packets becomes an issue for
   nodes that are many hops away.  In some use cases, a RPL network
   forms long lines and a limited amount of well-Targeted routing state
   would allow to make the source routing operation loose as opposed to
   strict, and save packet size.  Limiting the packet size is directly
   beneficial to the energy budget, but, mostly, it reduces the chances
   of frame loss and/or packet fragmentation, which is highly
   detrimental to the LLN operation.  Because the capability to store a
   routing state in every node is limited, the decision of which route
   is installed where can only be optimized with a global knowledge of
   the system, a knowledge that the Root or an associated PCE may
   possess by means that are outside of the scope of this specification.

   This specification enables to store a Storing Mode state in
   intermediate routers, which enables to limit the excursion of the
   source route headers in deep networks.  Once a P-DAO exchange has
   taken place for a given Target, if the Root operates in non Storing
   Mode, then it may elide the sequence of routers that is installed in
   the network from its source route headers to destination that are
   reachable via that Target, and the source route headers effectively
   become loose.

A.2.  Transversal Routes

   RPL is optimized for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-
   Point (MP2P), whereby routes are always installed along the RPL DODAG
   respectively from and towards the DODAG Root.  Transversal Peer to
   Peer (P2P) routes in a RPL network will generally suffer from some
   elongated (stretched) path versus the best possible path, since
   routing between 2 nodes always happens via a common parent, as
   illustrated in Figure 13:

   *  In Storing Mode, unless the destination is a child of the source,
      the packets will follow the default route up the DODAG as well.
      If the destination is in the same DODAG, they will eventually
      reach a common parent that has a route to the destination; at
      worse, the common parent may also be the Root.  From that common
      parent, the packet will follow a path down the DODAG that is
      optimized for the Objective Function that was used to build the
      DODAG.

   *  in Non-Storing Mode, all packets routed within the DODAG flow all
      the way up to the Root of the DODAG.  If the destination is in the
      same DODAG, the Root must encapsulate the packet to place an RH
      that has the strict source route information down the DODAG to the
      destination.  This will be the case even if the destination is
      relatively close to the source and the Root is relatively far off.

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

                      ------+---------
                       |          Internet
                       |
                    +-----+
                    |     | Border Router
                    |     |  (RPL Root)
                    +-----+
                       X
                 ^    v   o    o
             ^ o   o  v   o  o  o o   o
            ^  o o  o v    o   o   o  o  o
            ^   o    o  v     o  o    o  o  o
           S  o   o  o   D         o   o o
           o          o             o     o
                             LLN

       Figure 13: Routing Stretch between S and D via common parent X

   It results that it is often beneficial to enable transversal P2P
   routes, either if the RPL route presents a stretch from shortest
   path, or if the new route is engineered with a different objective,
   and that it is even more critical in Non-Storing Mode than it is in
   Storing Mode, because the routing stretch is wider.  For that reason,
   earlier work at the IETF introduced the "Reactive Discovery of
   Point-to-Point Routes in Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6997],
   which specifies a distributed method for establishing optimized P2P
   routes.  This draft proposes an alternate based on a centralized
   route computation.

                 ------+---------
                       |          Internet
                       |
                    +-----+
                    |     | Border Router
                    |     |  (RPL Root)
                    +-----+
                       |
                 o    o   o    o
             o o   o  o   o  o  o o   o
            o  o o  o o    o   o   o  o  o
            o   o    o  o     o  o    o  o  o
           S>>A>>>B>>C>>>D         o   o o
           o          o             o     o
                             LLN

                   Figure 14: Projected Transversal Route

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft               DAO Projection                 January 2021

   This specification enables to store source-routed or Storing Mode
   state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the stretch of
   a P2P route and maintain the characteristics within a given SLA.  An
   example of service using this mechanism oculd be a control loop that
   would be installed in a network that uses classical RPL for
   asynchronous data collection.  In that case, the P2P path may be
   installed in a different RPL Instance, with a different objective
   function.

Authors' Addresses

   Pascal Thubert (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   06254 Mougins - Sophia Antipolis
   France

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com

   Rahul Arvind Jadhav
   Huawei Tech
   Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
   Bangalore 560037
   Karnataka
   India

   Phone: +91-080-49160700
   Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com

   Matthew Gillmore
   Itron, Inc
   Building D
   2111 N Molter Road
   Liberty Lake,  99019
   United States

   Phone: +1.800.635.5461
   Email: matthew.gillmore@itron.com

Thubert, et al.           Expires 19 July 2021                 [Page 50]