ROLL R. Jadhav, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track P. Thubert
Expires: April 3, 2019 Cisco
R. Sahoo
Z. Cao
Huawei
September 30, 2018
Efficient Route Invalidation
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-08
Abstract
This document describes the problems associated with NPDAO messaging
used in RPL for route invalidation and signaling changes to improve
route invalidation efficiency.
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 April 3, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
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 NPDAO is 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 async 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. Proposed changes to RPL signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Change in RPL route invalidation semantics . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Transit Information Option changes . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Secure DCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2. DCO Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Path Sequence number in the DCO . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK) 10
4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1. Dependent Nodes invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2. NPDAO and DCO in the same network . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.3. DCO with multiple preferred parents . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Example Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Example DCO Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Example DCO Messaging with multiple preferred parents . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
1. Introduction
RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks)
specifies a proactive distance-vector based routing scheme. RPL has
an optional messaging in the form of DAO (Destination Advertisement
Object) messages using which the 6LBR (6Lo Border Router) and 6LR
(6Lo Router) can learn route towards the downstream nodes. In
storing mode, DAO messages would result in routing entries been
created on all intermediate 6LRs from the node's parent all the way
towards the 6LBR.
RPL allows use of No-Path DAO (NPDAO) messaging to invalidate a
routing path corresponding to the given target, thus releasing
resources utilized on that path. A NPDAO is a DAO message with route
lifetime of zero, originates at the target node and always flows
upstream towards the 6LBR. 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 pro-active route invalidation message called
as "Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)" is specified which fulfills
requirements of an optimized route invalidation messaging.
The document only caters to the RPL's storing mode of operation
(MOP). The non-storing MOP does not require use of NPDAO for route
invalidation since routing entries are not maintained on 6LRs.
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
6LR: 6LoWPAN Router. This is an intermediate 6lowpan router which
allows traffic routing through itself in a multihop 6lo network.
DAG: Directed Acyclic Graph. A directed graph having the property
that all edges are oriented in such a way that no cycles exist.
DODAG: Destination-oriented DAG. A DAG rooted at a single
destination, i.e., at a single DAG root with no outgoing edges.
6LBR: 6LoWPAN Border Router. A border router which is a DODAG root
and is the edge node for traffic flowing in and out of the 6lo
network.
DAO: Destination Advertisement Object. DAO messaging allows
downstream routes to the nodes to be established.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
DIO: DODAG Information Object. DIO messaging allows upstream routes
to the 6LBR to be established. DIO messaging is initiated at the DAO
root.
Common Ancestor node: 6LR/6LBR node which is the first common node
between two paths of a target node.
NPDAO: No-Path DAO. A DAO message which has target with lifetime 0.
DCO: Destination Cleanup Object, A new RPL control message type
defined by this draft. DCO messaging improves proactive route
invalidation in RPL.
Regular DAO: A DAO message with non-zero lifetime.
LLN: Low Power and Lossy Networks.
Target Node: The node switching its parent whose routing adjacencies
are updated (created/removed).
This document also uses terminology described in [RFC6550].
1.2. Current NPDAO messaging
RPL uses NPDAO messaging in the storing mode so that the node
changing it routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route.
This is needed so that nodes along previous path can release any
resources (such as the routing entry) it maintains on behalf of
target node.
For the rest of this document consider the following topology:
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
(6LBR)
|
|
|
(A)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(G) (H)
| |
| |
| |
(B) (C)
\ ;
\ ;
\ ;
(D)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(E) (F)
Figure 1: Sample topology
Node (D) is connected via preferred parent (B). (D) has an alternate
path via (C) towards the 6LBR. Node (A) is the common ancestor for
(D) for paths through (B)-(G) and (C)-(H). When (D) switches from
(B) to (C), RPL allows sending NPDAO to (B) and regular DAO to (C).
1.3. Why NPDAO is important?
Nodes in LLNs may be resource constrained. There is limited memory
available and routing entry records are one of the primary elements
occupying dynamic memory in the nodes. Route invalidation helps 6LR
nodes to decide which entries could be discarded to better achieve
resource utilization. Thus it becomes necessary to have efficient
route invalidation mechanism. Also note that a single parent switch
may result in a "sub-tree" switching from one parent to another.
Thus the route invalidation needs to be done on behalf of the sub-
tree and not the switching node alone. In the above example, when
Node (D) switches parent, the route updates needs to be done for the
routing tables entries of (C),(H),(A),(G), and (B) with destination
(D),(E) and (F). Without efficient route invalidation, a 6LR may
have to hold a lot of stale route entries.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
2. Problems with current NPDAO messaging
2.1. Lost NPDAO due to link break to the previous parent
When a node switches its parent, the NPDAO is to be sent to its
previous parent and a regular DAO to its new parent. In cases where
the node switches its parent because of transient or permanent parent
link/node failure then the NPDAO message is bound to fail.
2.2. Invalidate routes of dependent nodes
RPL does not specify how route invalidation will work for dependent
nodes rooted at switching node, resulting in stale routing entries of
the dependent nodes. The only way for 6LR to invalidate the route
entries for dependent nodes would be to use route lifetime expiry
which could be substantially high for LLNs.
In the example topology, when Node (D) switches its parent, Node (D)
generates an NPDAO on its behalf. There is no NPDAO generated by the
dependent child nodes (E) and (F), through the previous path via (D)
to (B) and (G), resulting in stale entries on nodes (B) and (G) for
nodes (E) and (F).
2.3. Possible route downtime caused by async operation of NPDAO and DAO
A switching node may generate both an NPDAO and DAO via two different
paths at almost the same time. There is a possibility that an NPDAO
generated may invalidate the previous route and the regular DAO sent
via the new path gets lost on the way. This may result in route
downtime impacting downward traffic for the switching node.
In the example topology, consider Node (D) switches from parent (B)
to (C). An NPDAO sent via previous route may invalidate the previous
route whereas there is no way to determine whether the new DAO has
successfully updated the route entries on the new path.
3. Requirements for the NPDAO Optimization
3.1. Req#1: Remove messaging dependency on link to the previous parent
When the switching node sends the NPDAO message to the previous
parent, it is normal that the link to the previous parent is prone to
failure (thats why the node decided to switch). Therefore, it is
required that the route invalidation does not depend on the previous
link which is prone to failure. The previous link referred here
represents the link between the node and its previous parent (from
whom the node is now disassociating).
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
3.2. Req#2: Dependent nodes route invalidation on parent switching
It should be possible to do route invalidation for dependent nodes
rooted at the switching node.
3.3. Req#3: Route invalidation should not impact data traffic
While sending the NPDAO and DAO messages, it is possible that the
NPDAO successfully invalidates the previous path, while the newly
sent DAO gets lost (new path not set up successfully). This will
result in downstream unreachability to the node switching paths.
Therefore, it is desirable that the route invalidation is
synchronized with the DAO to avoid the risk of route downtime.
4. Proposed changes to RPL signaling
4.1. Change in RPL route invalidation semantics
As described in Section 1.2, the NPDAO originates at the node
switching the parent and traverses upstream towards the root. In
order to solve the problems as mentioned in Section 2, the draft adds
new pro-active route invalidation message called as "Destination
Cleanup Object" (DCO) that originates at a common ancestor node
between the new and old path. The common ancestor node generates a
DCO in response to the change in the next-hop on receiving a regular
DAO with updated path sequence for the target.
In Figure 1, when node D decides to switch the path from B to C, it
sends a regular DAO to node C with reachability information
containing target as address of D and a incremented path sequence
number. Node C will update the routing table based on the
reachability information in DAO and in turn generate another DAO with
the same reachability information and forward it to H. Node H also
follows the same procedure as Node C and forwards it to node A. When
node A receives the regular DAO, it finds that it already has a
routing table entry on behalf of the target address of node D. It
finds however that the next hop information for reaching node D has
changed i.e. the node D has decided to change the paths. In this
case, Node A which is the common ancestor node for node D along the
two paths (previous and new), should generate a DCO which traverses
downwards in the network.
4.2. Transit Information Option changes
Every RPL message is divided into base message fields and additional
Options. The base fields apply to the message as a whole and options
are appended to add message/use-case specific attributes. As an
example, a DAO message may be attributed by one or more "RPL Target"
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
options which specify the reachability information for the given
targets. Similarly, a Transit Information option may be associated
with a set of RPL Target options.
The draft proposes a change in Transit Information option to contain
"Invalidate previous route" (I) bit. This I-bit signals the common
ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of the target node. The
I-bit is carried in the transit information option which augments the
reachability information for a given set of RPL Target(s). Transit
information option should be carried in the DAO message with I-bit
set in case route invalidation is sought for the correspondig
target(s).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x06 | Option Length |E|I| Flags | Path Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Sequence | Path Lifetime | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+ Parent Address* +
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Updated Transit Information Option (New I flag added)
I (Invalidate previous route) bit: 1 bit flag. The 'I' flag is set
by the target node to indicate that it wishes to invalidate the
previous route by a common ancestor node between the two paths.
The common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO message in response to
this I-bit when it sees that the routing adjacencies have changed for
the target. I-bit governs the ownership of the DCO message in a way
that the target node is still in control of its own route
invalidation.
4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)
A new ICMPv6 RPL control message type is defined by this
specification called as "Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO), which is
used for proactive cleanup of state and routing information held on
behalf of the target node by 6LRs. The DCO message always traverses
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
downstream and cleans up route information and other state
information associated with the given target.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |K|D| Flags | Reserved | DCOSequence |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID(optional) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DCO base object
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.
K: The 'K' flag indicates that the recipient is expected to send a
DCO-ACK back. If the DCO-ACK is not received even after setting the
'K', an implementation may choose to retry the DCO at a later time.
The number of retries are implementation and deployment dependent.
This document recommends using retries similar to what will be set
for DAO-ACK handling.
D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present. This
flag MUST be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.
Flags: The 6 bits remaining unused in the Flags field are reserved
for future use. These bits MUST be initialized to zero by the sender
and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Reserved: 8-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message from a node and
echoed in the DCO-ACK message. The initial DCOSequence can be chosen
randomly by the node.
DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that
uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field is only present when the 'D'
flag is set. This field is typically only present when a local
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
RPLInstanceID is in use, in order to identify the DODAGID that is
associated with the RPLInstanceID. When a global RPLInstanceID is in
use, this field need not be present. Unassigned bits of the DCO Base
are reserved. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on reception.
4.3.1. Secure DCO
A Secure DCO message follows the format in [RFC6550] figure 7, where
the base message format is the DCO message shown in Figure 3.
4.3.2. DCO Options
The DCO message MAY carry valid options. This specification allows
for the DCO message to carry the following options:
0x00 Pad1
0x01 PadN
0x05 RPL Target
0x06 Transit Information
0x09 RPL Target Descriptor
The DCO carries a Target option and an associated Transit Information
option with a lifetime of 0x00000000 to indicate a loss of
reachability to that Target.
4.3.3. Path Sequence number in the DCO
A DCO message may contain a Path Sequence in the transit information
option to identify the freshness of the DCO message. The Path
Sequence in the DCO MUST use the same Path Sequence number present in
the regular DAO message when the DCO is generated in response to DAO
message. The DAO and DCO path sequence are picked from the same
sequence number set. Thus if a DCO is received by a 6LR and
subsequently a DAO is received with old seqeunce number, then the DAO
should be ignored.
4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgement (DCO-ACK)
The DCO-ACK message may be sent as a unicast packet by a DCO
recipient in response to a unicast DCO message.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |D| Reserved | DCOSequence | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID(optional) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: DCO-ACK base object
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.
D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present. This
flag MUST be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.
Reserved: 7-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
DCOSequence: The DCOSequence in DCO-ACK is copied from the
DCOSequence received in the DCO message.
Status: Indicates the completion. Status 0 is defined as unqualified
acceptance in this specification. The remaining status values are
reserved as rejection codes.
DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root that
uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field is only present when the 'D'
flag is set. This field is typically only present when a local
RPLInstanceID is in use, in order to identify the DODAGID that is
associated with the RPLInstanceID. When a global RPLInstanceID is in
use, this field need not be present. Unassigned bits of the DCO-Ack
Base are reserved. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST
be ignored on reception.
4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK
A Secure DCO-ACK message follows the format in [RFC6550] figure 7,
where the base message format is the DCO-ACK message shown in
Figure 4.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
4.4. Other considerations
4.4.1. Dependent Nodes invalidation
Current RPL [RFC6550] does not provide a mechanism for route
invalidation for dependent nodes. This document allows the dependent
nodes invalidation. Dependent nodes will generate their respective
DAOs to update their paths, and the previous route invalidation for
those nodes should work in the similar manner described for switching
node. The dependent node may set the I-bit in the transit
information option as part of regular DAO so as to request
invalidation of previous route from the common ancestor node.
4.4.2. NPDAO and DCO in the same network
Even with the changed semantics, the current NPDAO mechanism in
[RFC6550] can still be used, for example, when the route lifetime
expiry of the target happens or when the node simply decides to
gracefully terminate the RPL session on graceful node shutdown.
Moreover a deployment can have a mix of nodes supporting the proposed
DCO and the existing NPDAO mechanism.
4.4.3. DCO with multiple preferred parents
[RFC6550] allows a node to select multiple preferred parents for
route establishment. Section 9.2.1 of [RFC6550] specifies, "All DAOs
generated at the same time for the same Target MUST be sent with the
same Path Sequence in the Transit Information". Thus a DAO message
with the same path sequence MUST be sent to all the parents.
Subsequently when route invalidation has to be initiated, RPL
mentions that an NPDAO must be initiated with updated path sequence
to all the routes to be invalidated.
With DCO, the Target node itself does not initiate the route
invalidation and it is left to the common ancestor node. A common
ancestor node when it discovers an updated DAO from a new next-hop,
it initiates a DCO. With multiple preferred parents, this handling
does not change. But in this case it is recommended that an
implementation initiates a DCO after a time period such that the
common ancestor node may receive updated DAOs from all possible next-
hops. This will help to reduce DCO control overhead i.e., the common
ancestor can wait for updated DAOs from all possible directions
before initiating a DCO for route invalidation. The time period for
initiating a DCO could be based on the depth of the network. After
timeout, the DCO needs to be generated for all the next-hops for whom
the route invalidation needs to be done.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
5. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Cenk Gundogan, Simon Duquennoy, Georgios
Papadopoulous, Peter Van Der Stok for their review and comments.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate new ICMPv6 RPL control codes in RPL
[RFC6550] for DCO and DCO-ACK messages.
+------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| Code | Description | Reference |
+------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 0x04 | Destination Cleanup Object | This |
| | | document |
| 0x05 | Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgement | This |
| | | document |
| 0x84 | Secure Destination Cleanup Object | This |
| | | document |
| 0x85 | Secure Destination Cleanup Object | This |
| | Acknowledgement | document |
+------+---------------------------------------------+--------------+
IANA is requested to allocate bit 18 in the Transit Information
Option defined in RPL [RFC6550] section 6.7.8 for Invalidate route
'I' flag.
7. Security Considerations
All RPL messages support a secure version of messages which allows
integrity protection using either a MAC or a signature. Optionally,
secured RPL messages also have encryption protection for
confidentiality.
The document adds new messages (DCO, DCO-ACK) which are syntactically
similar to existing RPL messages such as DAO, DAO-ACK. Secure
versions of DCO and DCO-ACK are added similar to other RPL messages
(such as DAO, DAO-ACK).
RPL supports three security modes as mentioned in Section 10.1 of
[RFC6550]:
1. Unsecured: In this mode, it is expected that the RPL control
messages are secured by other security mechanisms, such as link-
layer security. In this mode, the RPL control messages,
including DCO, DCO-ACK, do not have Security sections.
2. Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus
secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
3. Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus
secure versions of DCO, DCO-ACK MUST be used in this mode.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-14 (work
in progress), April 2018.
Appendix A. Example Messaging
A.1. Example DCO Messaging
In Figure 1, node (D) switches its parent from (B) to (C). The
sequence of actions is as follows:
1. Node D switches its parent from node B to node C
2. D sends a regular DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1) in the updated
path to C
3. C checks for routing entry on behalf of D, since it cannot find
an entry on behalf of D it creates a new routing entry and
forwards the reachability information of the target D to H in a
DAO.
4. Similar to C, node H checks for routing entry on behalf of D,
cannot find an entry and hence creates a new routing entry and
forwards the reachability information of the target D to H in a
DAO.
5. Node A receives the DAO, and checks for routing entry on behalf
of D. It finds a routing entry but checks that the next hop for
target D is now changed. Node A checks the I_flag and generates
DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=pathseq(DAO)) to previous next hop for target D
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
which is G. Subsequently, A updates the routing entry and
forwards the reachability information of target D upstream
DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=x) (the I_flag carries no
significance henceforth).
6. Node G receives the DCO and invalidates routing entry of target D
and forwards the (un)reachability information downstream to B.
7. Similarly, B processes the DCO by invalidating the routing entry
of target D and forwards the (un)reachability information
downstream to D.
8. D ignores the DCO since the target is itself.
9. The propagation of the DCO will stop at any node where the node
does not have an routing information associated with the target.
If the routing information is present and the pathseq associated
is not older, then still the DCO is dropped.
A.2. Example DCO Messaging with multiple preferred parents
(6LBR)
|
|
|
(N11)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(N21) (N22)
/ / \
/ / \
/ / \
(N31) (N32) (N33)
: | /
: | /
: | /
(N41)
Figure 5: Sample topology 2
In Figure 5, node (N41) selects multiple preferred parents (N32) and
(N33). The sequence of actions is as follows:
1. (N41) sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N32) and (N33). Here
I_flag refers to the Invalidation flag and PS refers to Path
Sequence in Transit Information option.
2. (N32) sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N22). (N33) also
sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N22). (N22) learns multiple
routes for the same destination (N41) through multiple next-hops.
The route table at N22 should contain (Dst,NextHop,PS): {
(N41,N32,x), (N41,N33,x) }.
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
3. (N22) sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N11).
4. (N11) sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (6LBR). Thus the
complete path is established.
5. (N41) decides to change preferred parent set from { N32, N33 } to
{ N31, N32 }.
6. (N41) sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N32). (N41) sends
DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N31).
7. (N32) sends DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N22). (N22) has
multiple routes to destination (N41). It sees that a new path
sequence for Target=N41 is received and thus it waits for pre-
determined time period to invalidate another route
{(N41),(N33),x}. After time period, (N22) sends
DCO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1) to (N33).
Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
Huawei
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis 06254
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Rabi Narayan Sahoo
Huawei
Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rabinarayans@huawei.com
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Efficient Route Invalidation September 2018
Zhen Cao
Huawei
W Chang'an Ave
Beijing
China
Email: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com
Jadhav, et al. Expires April 3, 2019 [Page 17]