Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-31

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (roll WG)
Last updated 2019-07-15 (latest revision 2019-07-04)
Replaces draft-robles-roll-useofrplinfo
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Peter Van der Stok
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-02-07)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to Peter Van der Stok <consultancy@vanderstok.org>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
ROLL Working Group                                             M. Robles
Internet-Draft                                                     Aalto
Updates: 6553, 6550, 8138 (if approved)                    M. Richardson
Intended status: Standards Track                                     SSW
Expires: January 5, 2020                                      P. Thubert
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            July 4, 2019

Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6
                  encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane
                    draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-31

Abstract

   This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power
   and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power
   and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing.  The document
   enumerates the cases where RFC6553 (RPL Option Type), RFC6554
   (Routing Header for Source Routes) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is
   required in data plane.  This analysis provides the basis on which to
   design efficient compression of these headers.  This document updates
   RFC6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type.  Additionally, this
   document updates RFC6550 defining a flag in the DIO Configuration
   Option to indicate about this change and updates RFC8138 as well to
   consider the new Option Type when the RPL Option is decompressed.

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 January 5, 2020.

Robles, et al.           Expires January 5, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               RPL-data-plane                    July 2019

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
   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.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  RPL Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Updates to RFC6553, RFC6550 and RFC8138 . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Updates to RFC6553: Indicating the new RPI value. . . . .   7
     4.2.  Updates to RFC6550: Indicating the new RPI in the
           DODAG Configuration Option Flag.  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Updates to RFC8138: Indicating the way to decompress with
           the new RPI value.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Storing mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root . . . . .  18
       7.1.1.  SM: Example of Flow from RAL to root  . . . . . . . .  18
       7.1.2.  SM: Example of Flow from root to RAL  . . . . . . . .  19
       7.1.3.  SM: Example of Flow from root to RUL  . . . . . . . .  20
       7.1.4.  SM: Example of Flow from RUL to root  . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  SM: Interaction between Leaf and Internet.  . . . . . . .  21
       7.2.1.  SM: Example of Flow from RAL to Internet  . . . . . .  22
       7.2.2.  SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RAL  . . . . . .  22
       7.2.3.  SM: Example of Flow from RUL to Internet  . . . . . .  23
       7.2.4.  SM: Example of Flow from Internet to RUL. . . . . . .  24
     7.3.  SM: Interaction between Leaf and Leaf . . . . . . . . . .  25
       7.3.1.  SM: Example of Flow from RAL to RAL . . . . . . . . .  25
       7.3.2.  SM: Example of Flow from RAL to RUL . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.3.  SM: Example of Flow from RUL to RAL . . . . . . . . .  27
Show full document text