Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-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
Show full document text