IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) WG A. Brandt
Internet-Draft J. Buron
Intended status: Standards Track Sigma Designs
Expires: August 7, 2014 February 3, 2014
Transmission of IPv6 packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks
draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-02
Abstract
This document describes the frame format for transmission of IPv6
packets and a method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and
statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on ITU-T G.9959 networks.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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 http://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 August 7, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://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
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terms used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. G.9959 parameters to use for IPv6 transport . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Addressing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IPv6 Multicast support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. G.9959 MAC PDU size and IPv6 MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Transmission status indications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Transmission security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Dispatch Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. LoWPAN addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of routable IPv6
addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. IPv6 Link Local Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Unicast Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. On the use of Neighbor Discovery technologies . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. Prefix and CID management (Route-over) . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. Prefix and CID management (Mesh-under) . . . . . . . 10
5. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Changes since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Changes since -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation [G.9959] targets low-power Personal
Area Networks (PANs). This document defines the frame format for
transmission of IPv6 [RFC2460] packets as well as the formation of
IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6
addresses on G.9959 networks.
The general approach is to adapt elements of [RFC4944] to G.9959
networks. G.9959 provides a Segmentation and Reassembly (SAR) layer
for transmission of datagrams larger than the G.9959 MAC PDU.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
[RFC6775] updates [RFC4944] by specifying 6LoWPAN optimizations for
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) (originally defined by [RFC4861]). This
document limits the use of [RFC6775] to prefix and Context ID
assignment. It is described how to construct an IID from a G.9959
link-layer address. If using that method, Duplicate Address
Detection (DAD) is not needed. Address registration is only needed
in certain cases.
In addition to IPv6 application communication, the frame format
defined in this document may be used by IPv6 routing protocols such
as RPL [RFC6550] or P2P-RPL [RFC6997] to implement IPv6 routing over
G.9959 networks.
The encapsulation frame defined by this specification may optionally
be transported via mesh routing below the 6LoWPAN layer. Routing
protocol specifications are out of scope of this document.
1.1. Terms used
ABR: Authoritative Border Router ([RFC6775])
AES: Advanced Encryption Scheme
EUI-64: Extended Unique Identifier
HomeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Network Identifier
IID: Interface IDentifier
MAC: Media Access Control
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit
NodeID: G.9959 Link-Layer Node Identifier (Short Address)
PAN: Personal Area Network
PDU: Protocol Data Unit
SAR: Segmentation And Reassembly
ULA: Unique Local Address
2. G.9959 parameters to use for IPv6 transport
This chapter outlines properties applying to the PHY and MAC of
G.9959 and how to use these for IPv6 transport.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
2.1. Addressing mode
G.9959 defines how a unique 32-bit HomeID network identifier is
assigned by a network controller and how an 8-bit NodeID host
identifier is allocated. NodeIDs are unique within the logical
network identified by the HomeID. The logical network identified by
the HomeID maps directly to an IPv6 subnet identified by one or more
IPv6 prefixes.
An IPv6 host MUST construct its link-local IPv6 address and routable
IPv6 addresses from the NodeID in order to facilitate IP header
compression as described in [RFC6282].
A word of caution: since HomeIDs and NodeIDs are handed out by a
network controller function during inclusion, identifier validity and
uniqueness is limited by the lifetime of the logical network
membership. This can be cut short by a mishap occurring to the
network controller. Having a single point of failure at the network
controller suggests that deployers of high-reliability applications
should carefully consider adding redundancy to the network controller
function.
2.2. IPv6 Multicast support
[RFC3819] recommends that IP subnetworks support (subnet-wide)
multicast. G.9959 supports direct-range IPv6 multicast while subnet-
wide multicast is not supported natively by G.9959. Subnet-wide
multicast may be provided by an IP routing protocol or a mesh routing
protocol operating below the 6LoWPAN layer. Routing protocol
specifications are out of scope of this document.
IPv6 multicast packets MUST be carried via G.9959 broadcast.
As per [G.9959], this is accomplished as follows:
1. The destination HomeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the HomeID
of the logical network
2. The destination NodeID of the G.9959 MAC PDU MUST be the
broadcast NodeID (0xff)
G.9959 broadcast MAC PDUs are only intercepted by nodes within the
logical network identified by the HomeID.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
2.3. G.9959 MAC PDU size and IPv6 MTU
IPv6 packets MUST use G.9959 transmission profiles which support MAC
PDU payload sizes of 150 bytes or higher, e.g. the R3 profile.
G.9959 profiles R1 and R2 only supports MPDU payloads around 40 bytes
and the transmission speed is down to 9.6kbit/s.
[RFC2460] specifies that IPv6 packets may be up to 1280 octets.
However, a full IPv6 packet does not fit in an G.9959 MAC PDU. The
maximum G.9959 R3 MAC PDU payload size is 158 octets. Link-layer
security imposes an overhead, which in the extreme case leaves 130
octets available.
G.9959 provides Segmentation And Reassembly for payloads up to 1350
octets. Segmentation however adds further overhead. It is desirable
that datagrams can fit into a single G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 Header
Compression [RFC6282] improves the chances that a short IPv6 packet
can fit into a single G.9959 frame. Therefore, section Section 3
specifies that [RFC6282] MUST be supported.
2.4. Transmission status indications
The G.9959 MAC layer provides native acknowledgement and
retransmission of MAC PDUs. The G.9959 SAR layer does the same for
larger datagrams. A mesh routing layer may provide a similar feature
for routed communication. Acknowledgment and retransmission improves
the transmission success rate and frees higher layers from the burden
of implementing individual retransmission schemes. An IPv6 routing
stack communicating over G.9959 may utilize link-layer status
indications such as delivery confirmation and Ack timeout from the
MAC layer.
2.5. Transmission security
Implementations claiming conformance with this document MUST enable
G.9959 shared network key security.
The shared network key is intended to address security requirements
in the home at the normal security requirements level. For
applications with high or very high requirements on confidentiality
and/or integrity, additional application layer security measures for
end-to-end authentication and encryption may need to be applied. The
availability of the network relies on the security properties of the
network key in any case.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
3. LoWPAN Adaptation Layer and Frame Format
The 6LoWPAN encapsulation formats defined in this chapter are carried
as payload in the G.9959 MAC PDU. IPv6 header compression [RFC6282]
MUST be supported by implementations of this specification.
All 6LoWPAN datagrams transported over G.9959 are prefixed by a
6LoWPAN encapsulation header stack. The 6LoWPAN payload (e.g. an
IPv6 packet) follows this encapsulation header. Each header in the
header stack contains a header type followed by zero or more header
fields. An IPv6 header stack may contain, in the following order,
addressing, hop-by-hop options, routing, fragmentation, destination
options, and finally payload [RFC2460]. The 6LoWPAN header format is
structured the same way. Currently only payload options are defined
for the 6LoWPAN header format.
The definition of 6LoWPAN headers consists of the dispatch value, the
definition of the header fields that follow, and their ordering
constraints relative to all other headers. Although the header stack
structure provides a mechanism to address future demands on the
6LoWPAN adaptation layer, it is not intended to provide general
purpose extensibility. This document specifies a small set of
6LoWPAN header types using the 6LoWPAN header stack for clarity,
compactness, and orthogonality.
3.1. Dispatch Header
The dispatch header is shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6LoWPAN CmdCls | Dispatch | Type-specific header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Dispatch Type and Header
6LoWPAN CmdCls: 6LoWPAN Command Class identifier. This field MUST
carry the value 0x4F [G.9959]. The value specifies that the
following bits are a 6LoWPAN encapsulated datagram. Non-6LoWPAN
protocols MUST ignore the contents following the 6LoWPAN Command
Class identifier.
Dispatch: Identifies the header type immediately following the
Dispatch Header.
Type-specific header: A header determined by the Dispatch Header.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
The dispatch value may be treated as an unstructured namespace. Only
a few symbols are required to represent current 6LoWPAN
functionality. Although some additional savings could be achieved by
encoding additional functionality into the dispatch byte, these
measures would tend to constrain the ability to address future
alternatives.
Dispatch values used in this specification are compatible with the
dispatch values defined by [RFC4944] and [RFC6282].
+------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Pattern | Header Type | Reference |
+------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 01 1xxxxx | 6LoWPAN_IPHC - Compressed IPv6 Addresses | [RFC6282] |
+------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
All other Dispatch values are unassigned in this document.
Figure 2: Dispatch values
6LoWPAN_IPHC: IPv6 Header Compression. Refer to [RFC6282].
4. LoWPAN addressing
IPv6 addresses are autoconfigured from IIDs which are again
constructed from link-layer address information to save memory in
devices and to facilitate efficient IP header compression as per
[RFC6282].
A G.9959 NodeID is 8 bits in length. A NodeID is mapped into an IEEE
EUI-64 identifier as follows:
IID = 0000:00ff:fe00:YYXX
Figure 3: Constructing a compressible IID
where XX carries the G.9959 NodeID and YY is a one byte value chosen
by the individual node. The default YY value MUST be zero. A node
MAY use other values of YY than zero to form additional IIDs in order
to instantiate multiple IPv6 interfaces. The YY value MUST be
ignored when computing the corresponding NodeID (the XX value) from
an IID.
A 6LoWPAN network typically is used for M2M-style communication. The
method of constructing IIDs from the link-layer address obviously
does not support addresses assigned or constructed by other means. A
node MUST NOT compute the NodeID from the IID if the first 6 bytes of
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 3. In that
case, the address resolution mechanisms of RFC 6775 apply.
4.1. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration of routable IPv6 addresses
The IID defined above MUST be used whether autoconfiguring a ULA IPv6
address [RFC4193] or a globally routable IPv6 address [RFC3587] in
G.9959 subnets.
4.2. IPv6 Link Local Address
The IPv6 link-local address [RFC4291] for a G.9959 interface is
formed by appending the IID defined above to the IPv6 link local
prefix FE80::/64.
The "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit MUST be set to zero in keeping with
the fact that this is not a globally unique value [EUI64].
The resulting link local address is formed as follows:
10 bits 54 bits 64 bits
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
|1111111010| (zeros) | Interface Identifier (IID) |
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
Figure 4: IPv6 Link Local Address
4.3. Unicast Address Mapping
The address resolution procedure for mapping IPv6 unicast addresses
into G.9959 link-layer addresses follows the general description in
Section 7.2 of [RFC4861]. The Source/Target Link-layer Address
option MUST have the following form when the link layer is G.9959.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 | NodeID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Padding |
+- -+
| (All zeros) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: IPv6 Unicast Address Mapping
Option fields:
Type: The value 1 signifies the Source Link-layer address. The value
2 signifies the Destination Link-layer address.
Length: This is the length of this option (including the type and
length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is
always 1 for G.9959 NodeIDs.
NodeID: This is the G.9959 NodeID the actual interface currently
responds to. The link-layer address may change if the interface
joins another network at a later time.
4.4. On the use of Neighbor Discovery technologies
[RFC4861] specifies how IPv6 nodes may resolve link layer addresses
from IPv6 addresses via the use of link-local IPv6 multicast.
[RFC6775] is an optimization of [RFC4861], specifically targeting
6LoWPAN networks. [RFC6775] defines how a 6LoWPAN node may register
IPv6 addresses with an authoritative border router (ABR). Mesh-under
networks MUST NOT use [RFC6775] address registration. However,
[RFC6775] address registration MUST be used if the first 6 bytes of
the IID do not comply with the format defined in Figure 3.
In route-over environments, IPv6 hosts MUST use [RFC6775] address
registration. [RFC6775] Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST NOT
be used, since the link-layer inclusion process of G.9959 ensures
that a NodeID is unique for a given HomeID.
4.4.1. Prefix and CID management (Route-over)
A node implementation for route-over operation MAY use RFC6775
mechanisms for obtaining IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
compression context information [RFC6282]. RFC6775 Route-over
requirements apply with no modifications.
4.4.2. Prefix and CID management (Mesh-under)
An implementation for mesh-under operation MUST use [RFC6775]
mechanisms for managing IPv6 prefixes and corresponding header
compression context information [RFC6282]. Except for the specific
redefinition of the RA Router Lifetime value 0xFFFF (refer to
Section 4.4.2.3), the text of the following subsections is in
compliance with [RFC6775].
4.4.2.1. Prefix assignment considerations
When using [RFC6775] mechanisms for sending RAs, the M flag MUST NOT
be set. As stated by [RFC6775], an ABR is responsible for managing
prefix(es). Global prefixes may change over time. It is RECOMMENDED
that a ULA prefix is always assigned to the 6LoWPAN subnet to
facilitate stable site-local application associations based on IPv6
addresses. Prefixes used in the 6LoWPAN subnet are distributed by
normal RA mechanisms.
4.4.2.2. Robust and efficient CID management
The 6LoWPAN Context Option (6CO) is used according to [RFC6775] in an
RA to disseminate Context IDs (CID) to use for compressing prefixes.
Prefixes and corresponding Context IDs MUST be assigned during
initial node inclusion.
When updating context information, a CID may have its lifetime set to
zero to obsolete it. The CID MUST NOT be reused immediately; rather
the next vacant CID should be assigned. Header compression based on
CIDs MUST NOT be used for RA messages carrying Context Information.
An expired CID and the associated prefix MUST NOT be reset but rather
retained in receive-only mode if there is no other current need for
the CID value. This will allow an ABR to detect if a sleeping node
without clock uses an expired CID and in response, the ABR MUST
return an RA with fresh Context Information to the originator.
4.4.2.3. Infinite prefix lifetime support for island-mode networks
Nodes MUST renew the prefix and CID according to the lifetime
signaled by the ABR. [RFC6775] specifies that the maximum value of
the RA Router Lifetime field MAY be up to 0xFFFF. This document
further specifies that the value 0xFFFF MUST be interpreted as
infinite lifetime. This value MUST NOT be used by ABRs. Its use is
only intended for a sleeping network controller; for instance a
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
battery powered remote control being master for a small island-mode
network of light modules.
5. Header Compression
IPv6 header compression [RFC6282] MUST be implemented according to
[RFC6282]. This section will simply identify substitutions that
should be made when interpreting the text of [RFC6282].
In general the following substitutions should be made:
o Replace "802.15.4" with "G.9959"
o Replace "802.15.4 short address" with "<Interface><G.9959 NodeID>"
o Replace "802.15.4 PAN ID" with "G.9959 HomeID"
When a 16-bit address is called for (i.e., an IEEE 802.15.4 "short
address") it MUST be formed by prepending an Interface label byte to
the G.9959 NodeID:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface | NodeID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A transmitting node may be sending to an IPv6 destination address
which can be reconstructed from the link-layer destination address.
If the Interface number is zero (the default value), all IPv6 address
bytes may be elided. Likewise, the Interface number of a fully
elided IPv6 address (i.e. SAM/DAM=11) may be reconstructed to the
value zero by a receiving node.
64 bit 802.15.4 address details MUST be ignored. This document only
specifies the use of short addresses.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
7. Security Considerations
The method of derivation of Interface Identifiers from 8-bit NodeIDs
preserves uniqueness within the logical network. However, there is
no protection from duplication through forgery. Neighbor Discovery
in G.9959 links may be susceptible to threats as detailed in
[RFC3756]. G.9959 networks may feature mesh routing. This implies
additional threats due to ad hoc routing as per [KW03]. G.9959
provides capability for link-layer security. G.9959 nodes MUST use
link-layer security with a shared key. Doing so will alleviate the
majority of threats stated above. A sizeable portion of G.9959
devices is expected to always communicate within their PAN (i.e.,
within their subnet, in IPv6 terms). In response to cost and power
consumption considerations, these devices will typically implement
the minimum set of features necessary. Accordingly, security for
such devices may rely on the mechanisms defined at the link layer by
G.9959. G.9959 relies on the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for
authentication and encryption of G.9959 frames and further employs
challenge-response handshaking to prevent replay attacks.
It is also expected that some G.9959 devices (e.g. billing and/or
safety critical products) will implement coordination or integration
functions. These may communicate regularly with IPv6 peers outside
the subnet. Such IPv6 devices are expected to secure their end-to-
end communications with standard security mechanisms (e.g., IPsec,
TLS, etc).
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the authors of RFC 4944 and RFC 6282 and members of the
IETF 6LoWPAN working group; this document borrows extensively from
their work. Thanks to Erez Ben-Tovim, Kerry Lynn, Michael
Richardson, Tommas Jess Christensen for useful comments. Thanks to
Carsten Bormann for extensive feedback which improved this document
significantly.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[EUI64] IEEE, "communicationIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER
(EUI-64) REGISTRATION AUTHORITY", IEEE Std http://
standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html,
November 2012.
[G.9959] "G.9959 (02/12) + G.9959 Amendment 1 (10/13): Short range,
narrow-band digital radiocommunication transceivers",
February 2012.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
September 2011.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
"Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
November 2012.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May
2004.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, July 2004.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., 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, March 2012.
[RFC6997] Goyal, M., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and J.
Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, August 2013.
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. Changes since -00
o Clarified that mesh-under routing may take place below the 6lowpan
layer but that specific mesh-under routing protocols are not
within the scope of this doc.
o Clarified that RFC6282 IPv6 Header Compression MUST be supported.
o Clarified the text of section 5.4 on the use of RFC6775 address
registration in mesh-under networks.
o Split 5.4.2 into multiple paragraphs.
A.2. Changes since -01
o Added this Change Log
o Editorial nits.
o Made IPv6 Header Compression mandatory. Therefore, the Dispatch
value "01 000001 - Uncompressed IPv6 Addresses" was removed from
figure 2.
o Changed SHOULD to MUST: An IPv6 host SHOULD construct its link-
local IPv6 address and routable IPv6 addresses from the NodeID in
order to facilitate IP header compression as described in
[RFC6282].
o Changed SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT: Mesh-under networks MUST NOT use
[RFC6775] address registration.
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 over G.9959 February 2014
o Changed SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT: [RFC6775] Duplicate Address
Detection (DAD) MUST NOT be used.
o Changed SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT: The CID MUST NOT be reused
immediately;
o Changed SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT: An expired CID and the associated
prefix MUST NOT be reset but rather retained in receive-only mode
o Changed LBR -> ABR
o Changed SHOULD to MUST: , the ABR MUST return an RA with fresh
Context Information to the originator.
o Changed SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT: This value MUST NOT be used by
ABRs. Its use is only intended for a sleeping network controller;
o
Authors' Addresses
Anders Brandt
Sigma Designs
Emdrupvej 26A, 1.
Copenhagen O 2100
Denmark
Email: anders_brandt@sigmadesigns.com
Jakob Buron
Sigma Designs
Emdrupvej 26A, 1.
Copenhagen O 2100
Denmark
Email: jakob_buron@sigmadesigns.com
Brandt & Buron Expires August 7, 2014 [Page 15]
