Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-17

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05
• 06
• 07
• 08
• 09
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17

ROLL                                                      R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. Thubert
Expires: May 1, 2020                                               Cisco
                                                                R. Sahoo
                                                                  Z. Cao
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        October 29, 2019

                      Efficient Route Invalidation
                   draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-17

Abstract

   This document explains the problems associated with the current use
   of NPDAO messaging and also discusses the requirements for an
   optimized route invalidation messaging scheme.  Further a new
   proactive route invalidation message called as "Destination Cleanup
   Object" (DCO) is specified which fulfills requirements of an
   optimized route invalidation messaging.

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 May 1, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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

Jadhav, et al.             Expires May 1, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Efficient Route Invalidation          October 2019

   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Why Is NPDAO Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Problems with current NPDAO messaging . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent . . .   6
     2.2.  Invalidate Routes of Dependent Nodes  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Possible route downtime caused by asynchronous operation
           of NPDAO and DAO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Req#1: Remove messaging dependency on link to the
           previous parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent
           switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic    7
   4.  Changes to RPL signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Change in RPL route invalidation semantics  . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Transit Information Option changes  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  Secure DCO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.3.  Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.4.  Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgment (DCO-ACK) .  11
       4.3.5.  Secure DCO-ACK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  DCO Base Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.5.  Unsolicited DCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.6.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.6.1.  Dependent Nodes invalidation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.6.2.  NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.6.3.  Considerations for DCO retry  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.6.4.  DCO with multiple preferred parents . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16