Root initiated routing state in RPL
draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (roll WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-11-17
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-thubert-roll-dao-projection
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
html
xml
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
WG Document
(wg milestone:
Dec 2019 - Initial submission o...
)
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
ROLL P. Thubert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 6550 (if approved) R.A. Jadhav
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Tech
Expires: 20 May 2020 M. Gillmore
Itron
17 November 2019
Root initiated routing state in RPL
draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-09
Abstract
This document enables a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected
Routes within its DODAG, along a selected set of nodes that may or
may not include self, for a chosen duration. This potentially
enables routes that are more optimized or resilient than those
obtained with the classical distributed operation of RPL, either in
terms of the size of a source-route header or in terms of path
length, which impacts both the latency and the packet delivery ratio.
Projected Routes may be installed in either Storing and Non-Storing
Modes Instances of the classical RPL operation, resulting in
potentially hybrid situations where the mode of some Projected Routes
is different from that of the other routes in the RPL Instance.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 May 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Thubert, et al. Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DAO Projection November 2019
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. BCP 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Subset of a 6LoWPAN Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Other Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Extending RFC 6550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Identifying a Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. New RPL Control Messages and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. New P-DAO Request Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. New PDR-ACK Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Route Projection Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Sibling Information Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Projected DAO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Non-Storing Mode Projected Route . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Storing-Mode Projected Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. New RPL Control Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. New RPL Control Message Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.3. New SubRegistry for the Projected DAO Request (PDR)
Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.4. New SubRegistry for the PDR-ACK Flags . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.5. New Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status
values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.6. New Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status
values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.7. New SubRegistry for the Route Projection Options (RPO)
Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Show full document text