<?xmlversion="1.0"?>version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM"rfc2629.dtd" [ <!ENTITY RFC6550 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6550.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC8138 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8138.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC8200 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8200.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6553 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6553.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6554 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6554.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6040 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6040.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC7102 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7102.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC4443 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6775 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6775.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC2473 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2473.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC4302 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4302.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC4301 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4301.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC4303 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4303.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC7321 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7321.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC7416 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7416.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC8180 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8180.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC8505 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8505.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC2460 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2460.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC6437 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6437.xml"> ]> <!-- --> <!--<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> --> <!-- used by XSLT processors --> <!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->"rfc2629-xhtml.ent"> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" docName="draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-44" number="9008" ipr="trust200902" updates="6550, 6553, 8138" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" category="std" consensus="true" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3"> <!--Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use. (Here they are set differently than their defaults inxml2rfcv1.32) --> <?rfc strict="no" ?> <!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation --> <!-- control the table of contents (ToC) --> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <!-- generate a ToCv2v3 conversion 3.5.0 --><?rfc tocdepth="4"?><!-- [rfced] FYI There are [auth] comments included throughout thenumber of levels of subsectionsfile. We have left them inToC. default: 3 --> <!-- control references --> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] --> <?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?> <!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically --> <!-- control vertical white space (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) --> <?rfc compact="yes" ?> <!-- do not start each main section on a new page --> <?rfc subcompact="no" ?> <!-- keep one blank line between list items --> <!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions --> <rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-44" ipr="trust200902" updates="6553, 6550, 8138"> <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902, or pre5378Trust200902for now, in case youcan add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" theywant to review. However, please note that these willautomaticallybeoutput with "(if approved)" --> <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** --> <front> <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary ifremoved from thefull title is longer than 39 charactersXML file prior to publication. --> <front> <titleabbrev="RPL-data-plane">Usingabbrev="RPL Data Plane">Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for SourceRoutesRoutes, and IPv6-in-IPv6encapsulationEncapsulation in the RPL Data Plane</title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9008"/> <author initials="M.I." surname="Robles" fullname="Maria Ines Robles"> <organization abbrev="UTN-FRM/Aalto"> Universidad Tecno. Nac.(UTN)-FRM, Argentina /Aalto University Finland </organization> <address> <postal> <street>Coronel Rodríguez 273</street> <city>Mendoza</city> <region>Provincia de Mendoza</region> <code>M5500</code> <country>Argentina</country> </postal> <email>mariainesrobles@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <author initials="M." surname="Richardson" fullname="Michael C. Richardson"> <organization abbrev="SSW">Sandelman Software Works</organization> <address> <postal> <street>470 Dawson Avenue</street> <city>Ottawa</city> <region>ON</region> <code>K1Z 5V7</code><country>CA</country><country>Canada</country> </postal> <email>mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca</email> <uri>http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/</uri> </address> </author> <author initials="P" surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert"> <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc</organization> <address> <postal><street>Building D</street><extaddr>Building D</extaddr> <street>45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 </street> <city>MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis</city> <code>06254</code><country>FRANCE</country><country>France</country> </postal> <phone>+33 497 23 26 34</phone> <email>pthubert@cisco.com</email> </address> </author> <date/>year="2021" month="March"/> <area>Internet</area> <workgroup>ROLL Working Group</workgroup> <keyword>RPL Option</keyword> <keyword>6LoWPAN</keyword> <keyword>RFC 6553</keyword> <abstract> <t> This document looks at different data flows throughLLN (Low-PowerLow-Power and LossyNetworks)Networks (LLN) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases whereRFC6553 (RPIRPL Packet Information (RPI) OptionType), RFC6554 (Routing Header forType (RFC 6553), RPL SourceRoutes)Route Header (RFC 6554), and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulationisare required in the data plane. This analysis provides the basisonupon which to design efficient compression of these headers. This document updatesRFC6553RFC 6553 by adding a change to the RPI Option Type. Additionally, this document updatesRFC6550RFC 6550 by defining a flag in theDIODODAG Information Object (DIO) Configuration option to indicateaboutthis change and updatesRFC8138RFC 8138 as well to consider the new Option Type when the RPL Option is decompressed. </t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <sectiontitle="Introduction">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t> RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) <xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" format="default"/> is a routing protocol for constrained networks. <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>target="RFC6553" format="default"/> defines the RPL Option carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-HopHeaderOptions header to carry the RPLInstanceID and quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. The RPL Option is commonly referred to as the RPL Packet Information(RPI) though(RPI), although the RPI is the routing information that is defined in <xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" format="default"/> and transported in the RPL Option.RFC6554RFC 6554 <xreftarget="RFC6554"/>target="RFC6554" format="default"/> defines the "RPL Source Route Header" (RH3), an IPv6Extension Headerextension header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing domain, particularly innon-storingNon-Storing mode. </t> <t> These various items are referred to as RPL artifacts, and they are seen on all of thedata-planedata plane traffic that occurs inRPL routedRPL-routed networks; they donotnot, ingeneralgeneral, appear on the RPL control planetrafficatallall, which is mostlyHop-by-Hophop-by-hop traffic (one exception beingDAODestination Advertisement Object (DAO) messages innon-storingNon-Storing mode). </t> <t> It has become clear from attempts to do multi-vendor interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above artifacts aspossiblepossible, that not all implementers agree when artifacts are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed. </t> <t> The ROLLWG(Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks) Working Group analyzed how IPv6 rules <xref target="RFC2460"/> rulesformat="default"/> apply tostoringthe Storing andnon-storingNon-Storing use of RPL. The result was 24data planedata-plane use cases. They are exhaustively outlined here in order to be completely unambiguous. During the processing of this document, new rules were published as <xreftarget="RFC8200"/>,target="RFC8200" format="default"/>, and this document was updated to reflect the normative changes in that document. </t> <t> This document updates <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>,target="RFC6553" format="default"/>, changing the value of the Option Type of the RPL Option to make<xref target="RFC8200"/>routers compliant with <xref target="RFC8200" format="default"/> ignore this option when it is not recognized. </t> <t> A Routing Header Dispatch for6LoWPAN (6LoRH)(<xrefIPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) (6LoRH) <xref target="RFC8138"/>)format="default"/> defines a mechanism for compressing RPL Option information and Routing Header type 3 (RH3) <xreftarget="RFC6554"/>,target="RFC6554" format="default"/>, as well as an efficient IPv6-in-IPv6 technique.</t><t></t> <t> Most of the use cases described herein require the use of IPv6-in-IPv6 packet encapsulation. When encapsulating and decapsulating packets, <xreftarget="RFC6040"/> MUSTtarget="RFC6040" format="default"/> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be applied to map the setting of the explicit congestion notification (ECN) field between inner and outer headers. Additionally, <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels"/>target="I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels" format="default"/> is recommended reading to explain the relationship of IP tunnels to existing protocol layers and the challenges in supporting IP tunneling. </t> <t>Non-constrainedUnconstrained uses of RPL are not in scope of this document, and applicability statements for those uses may provide different advice,E.g.e.g., <xref target="I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane"/>.format="default"/>. </t> <sectiontitle="Overview">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Overview</name> <t> The rest of the document is organized as follows:Section 2<xref target="sec_terms" format="default"/> describes theused terminology. Section 3terminology that is used. <xref target="sec_rpl_overview" format="default"/> provides a RPLOverview. Section 4overview. <xref target="updateRFCs_section" format="default"/> describes the updates toRFC6553, RFC6550RFC 6553, RFC 6550, and RFC 8138.Section 5<xref target="sec_ref_topo" format="default"/> provides the reference topology used for theusesuse cases.Section 6<xref target="sec_use_cases" format="default"/> describes the use cases included.Section 7<xref target="sec_sm" format="default"/> describes thestoringStoring mode cases andsection 8<xref target="sec_non-sm" format="default"/> thenon-storingNon-Storing mode cases.Section 9<xref target="notrplaware" format="default"/> describes the operational considerations of supportingRPL-unaware-leaves. Section 10RPL-unaware leaves. <xref target="sec_op_con_0x23" format="default"/> depicts operational considerations for the proposed change on RPI Option Type,section 11<xref target="iana" format="default"/> the IANAconsiderationsconsiderations, and thensection 12<xref target="Security" format="default"/> describes the security aspects. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Terminologyanchor="sec_terms" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Terminology and RequirementsLanguage">Language</name> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14BCP 14 <xreftarget="RFC2119" />target="RFC2119"/> <xreftarget="RFC8174" />target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t> <t>TerminologyThe following terminology defined in <xreftarget="RFC7102"/>target="RFC7102" format="default"/> applies to this document: LLN, RPL, RPLdomaindomain, and ROLL. </t><t> Consumed: A<dl> <dt> Consumed:</dt><dd>A Routing Header is consumed when the Segments Left field is zero, which indicates that the destination in the IPv6 header is the final destination of the packet and that the hops in the Routing Header have been traversed.</t> <t></dd> <dt> RPLLeaf: AnLeaf:</dt><dd>An IPv6 host that is attached to a RPL router and obtains connectivity through a RPLDestination OrientedDestination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG). As an IPv6 node, a RPLLeafleaf is expected to ignore a consumed RoutingHeaderHeader, and as an IPv6 host, it is expected to ignore a Hop-by-Hop Options header.It results thatThus, a RPLLeafleaf can correctly receive a packet with RPL artifacts. On the other hand, a RPLLeafleaf is not expected to generate RPL artifacts or to support IP-in-IP encapsulation. For simplification, this document uses the standalone term leaf to mean a RPL leaf.</t> <t></dd> <dt> RPL Packet Information(RPI):(RPI):</dt><dd> The information defined abstractly in <xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" format="default"/> to be placed in IP packets. The term is commonly used, including in this document, to refer to the RPL Option <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>target="RFC6553" format="default"/> that transports that abstract information in an IPv6 Hop-by-HopHeader.Options header. <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>target="RFC8138" format="default"/> provides an alternate (more compressed)formatingformatting for the same abstract information.</t> <t> RPL-aware-node (RAN): A</dd> <dt> RPL-Aware Node (RAN):</dt><dd>A devicewhichthat implements RPL. Please note that the device can be found inside the LLN or outside LLN.</t> <t> RPL-Aware-Leaf(RAL): A RPL-aware-node</dd> <dt> RPL-Aware Leaf (RAL):</dt><dd>A RPL-aware node that is also a RPLLeaf. </t> <t> RPL-unaware-node: Aleaf. </dd> <dt> RPL-Unaware Node:</dt><dd>A devicewhichthat does not implement RPL, thus the device isnot-RPL-aware.RPL unaware. Please note that the device can be found inside the LLN.</t> <t> RPL-Unaware-Leaf(RUL): A RPL-unaware-node</dd> <dt> RPL-Unaware Leaf (RUL):</dt><dd>A RPL-unaware node that is also a RPLLeaf. </t> <t>leaf. </dd> <!-- Note: blockquote could be used here, but it doesn't work in <dd/>: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/570 Check status of this before pub. And since there are three places where it can't be used in the terminology, it seemed odd to use it in Section 4.2, which is just a fragment of a quote. --> <dt> 6LoWPAN Node(6LN): <xref target="RFC6775"/>(6LN):</dt><dd><xref target="RFC6775" format="default"/> defines itas:as the following: "A 6LoWPAN node is any host or router participating in a LoWPAN. This term is used when referring to situations in which either a host or router can play the roledescribed.".described." In this document, a 6LN acts as a leaf.</t> <t></dd> <dt> 6LoWPAN Router(6LR): <xref target="RFC6775"/>(6LR):</dt><dd><xref target="RFC6775" format="default"/> defines itas:" Anas the following: "An intermediate router in the LoWPAN that is able to send and receive Router Advertisements (RAs) and Router Solicitations (RSs) as well as forward and route IPv6 packets. 6LoWPAN routers are present only in route-over topologies."</t> <t></dd> <dt> 6LoWPAN Border Router(6LBR): <xref target="RFC6775"/>(6LBR):</dt><dd><xref target="RFC6775" format="default"/> defines itas:"Aas the following: "A border router located at the junction of separate 6LoWPAN networks or between a 6LoWPAN network and another IP network. There may be one or more 6LBRs at the 6LoWPAN network boundary. A 6LBR is the responsible authority for IPv6 prefix propagation for the 6LoWPAN network it is serving. An isolated LoWPAN also contains a 6LBR in the network, which provides the prefix(es) for the isolated network."</t> <t> Flag Day: A</dd> <dt> FlagDayDay:</dt><dd>A flag day is caused when a network is reconfigured in a way that nodes running the older configurationcan notcannot communicate with nodes running the new configuration.For instance,An example of a flag day is when the ARPANET changed from IP version 3 to IP version 4 on January 1, 1983(<xref<xref target="RFC0801"/>).format="default"/>. In the context of this document, a switch from RPI Option Type (0x63)andto Option Type (0x23) presents as a disruptive changeover. In order to reduce the amount of time for such a changeover, <xref target="update6550"/>format="default"/> provides a mechanism to allow nodes to be incrementally upgraded.</t> <t></dd> <dt> Non-Storing Mode(Non-SM):(Non-SM):</dt><dd>A RPL mode of operation in which theRPL- aware-nodesRPL-aware nodes send information to the root about their parents. Thus, the root knows the topology. Because the root knows the topology, the intermediate 6LRs do not maintain routingstatestate, and source routing is needed.</t> <t></dd> <dt> Storing Mode(SM):(SM):</dt><dd>A RPL mode of operation in whichRPL-aware-nodesRPL-aware nodes (6LRs) maintain routing state (of the children) so that source routing is not needed.</t> <t></dd> </dl> <aside><t> Note: Due to lack of space in somefigures (tables)tables, we refer to IPv6-in-IPv6 as IP6-IP6.</t></t></aside> </section> <sectiontitle="RPL Overview">anchor="sec_rpl_overview" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>RPL Overview</name> <t> RPL defines the RPLControl messagescontrol message (control plane),a newwhich is an ICMPv6<xref target="RFC4443"/>message <xref target="RFC4443" format="default"/> with a Type of 155. DIS (DODAG Information Solicitation), DIO (DODAG InformationObject)Object), and DAO (Destination Advertisement Object) messages are all RPLControlcontrol messages but with different Code values. A RPLStackstack is shown in <xreftarget="fig_RPLStack"/>.target="fig_RPLStack" format="default"/>. </t><t><figuretitle="RPL Stack." anchor="fig_RPLStack" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[anchor="fig_RPLStack"> <name>RPL Stack</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ +--------------+ | Upper Layers | | | +--------------+ | RPL | | | +--------------+ | ICMPv6 | | | +--------------+ | IPv6 | | | +--------------+ | 6LoWPAN | | | +--------------+ | PHY-MAC | | | +--------------+]]></artwork></figure> </t>]]></artwork> </figure> <t> RPL supports two modes of Downward internal traffic: instoringStoring mode (SM), it is fully stateful; innon-storingNon-Storing mode(Non-SM),(non-SM), it is fully source routed. A RPL Instance is either fullystoringStoring or fullynon-storing, i.e.Non-Storing, i.e., a RPL Instance with a combination ofafullystoringStoring andnon-storingNon-Storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the time of writing this document. External routes are advertised withnon-storing-modenon-SM messaging even ina storing modean SM network, see <xreftarget="nnstext"/>target="nnstext" format="default"/> </t> </section> <section anchor="updateRFCs_section"title="Updatesnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Updates toRFC6550, RFC6553RFC 6550, RFC 6553, andRFC8138">RFC 8138</name> <section anchor="updateRFC_section6550"title="Updatesnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Updates toRFC6550">RFC 6550</name> <section anchor="nnstext"title="Advertisingnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Advertising External Routes with Non-Storing ModeSignaling.">Signaling</name> <t>Section 6.7.8. of<xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" section="6.7.8" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> introduces the 'E' flag that is set to indicate that the 6LR that generates the DAO redistributes external targets into the RPL network. An externalTargettarget is aTargettarget that has been learned through an alternate protocol, forinstanceinstance, a route to a prefix that is outside the RPL domain but reachable via a 6LR. Being outside of the RPL domain, a node that is reached via an external target cannot be guaranteed to ignore the RPL artifacts and cannot be expected to process the<xref target="RFC8138"/>compression defined in <xref target="RFC8138" format="default"/> correctly. This means that the RPL artifacts should be contained in an IP-in-IP encapsulation that is removed by the 6LR, and that any remaining compression should be expanded by the 6LR before it forwards a packet outside the RPL domain.</t><t></t> <t> This specification updates <xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" format="default"/> toRECOMMENDsay that advertising external targetsare advertisedusing Non-StoringModemode DAO messaging even in aStoring-Mode network.Storing mode network is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>. This way, external routes are not advertised within theDODAGDODAG, and all packets to an external target reach theRootroot like normal Non-StoringModemode traffic. The Non-StoringModemode DAO informs theRootroot of the address of the 6LR that injects the external route, and the root uses IP-in-IP encapsulation to that 6LR, which terminates the IP-in-IP tunnel and forwards the original packet outside the RPL domain free of RPL artifacts.</t><t></t> <t> In the other direction, for traffic coming from an external target into the LLN, the parent (6LR) that injects the traffic always encapsulates to the root. This whole operation is transparent to intermediate routers that only see traffic between the 6LR and theRoot,root, and only theRootroot and the 6LRs that inject external routes in the network need to be upgraded to add this function to the network.</t><t></t> <t> A RUL is a special case of external target when the target is actually ahosthost, and it is known to support a consumed Routing Header and to ignore a Hop-by-Hop Options header as prescribed by <xreftarget="RFC8200"/>.target="RFC8200" format="default"/>. The target may have been learned through an external routing protocol or may have been registered to the 6LR using <xreftarget="RFC8505"/>. </t><t>target="RFC8505" format="default"/>. </t> <t> In order to enable IP-in-IP all the way to a 6LN, it is beneficial that the 6LN supports decapsulating IP-in-IP, but that is not assumed by <xreftarget="RFC8504"/>.target="RFC8504" format="default"/>. If the 6LN is a RUL, theRootroot that encapsulates a packetSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> terminate the tunnel at a parent6LR unless6LR. The root may encapsulate all the way to the RUL if it is aware that the RUL supports IP-in-IPdecapsulation. </t><t>decapsulation and the artifacts in the outer header chain. </t> <t> A node that is reachable over an external route is not expected to support <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>.target="RFC8138" format="default"/>. Whether a decapsulation took place or not and even when the 6LR is delivering the packet to a RUL, the 6LR that injected an external routeMUST uncompress<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> undo the <xref target="RFC8138" format="default"/> compression on the packet before forwarding over that external route. </t> </section> <section anchor="mopchanges"title="Configurationnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Configuration Options and Mode ofOperation">Operation</name> <t>Section 6.7.6 of RFC6550<xref target="RFC6550" section="6.7.6" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> describes the DODAG ConfigurationOptionoption as containing a series ofFlagsflags in the first octet of the payload. </t> <t> Anticipating future work to revise RPL relating to how the LLN and DODAG are configured, this document renames theDODAGIANA "DODAG Configuration OptionFlags registryFlags" subregistry so that it applies to Mode of Operation (MOP) values zero (0)tothrough six (6) only, leaving the flags unassigned for MOP value seven(7).The(7). The MOP is described inRFC6550 section 6.3.1.<xref target="RFC6550" section="6.3.1" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>. </t> <t> In addition, this document reserves MOP value 7 for future expansion. </t> <t> See Sections11.2<xref target="sec_op_flags_reg" format="counter"/> and11.3.<xref target="sec_mop_val_change" format="counter"/>. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Indicatinganchor="update6550" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Indicating thenewNew RPI in the DODAG Configurationoption Flag. " anchor="update6550">Option Flag</name> <t> In order to avoid aFlag Dayflag day caused by lack of interoperation between nodes of the new RPI Option Type (0x23) and old RPI Option Type(0x63) nodes,(0x63), this section defines a flag in theDIODODAG Configuration option, to indicate when the new RPI Option Type can be safely used. Thismeans,means that the flag is going to indicate the value of Option Type that the network will be using for the RPL Option. Thus, when a node joins to anetworknetwork, it will know which value to use. With this, RPL-capable nodes know if it is safe to use 0x23 when creating a new RPL Option. A node that forwards a packet with an RPIMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> modify the Option Type of the RPL Option. </t> <t> This is done using a DODAG Configuration option flagwhichthat will signal "RPI 0x23 enable" and propagate through the network.Section 6.3.1. of<xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" section="6.3.1" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> defines a 3-bit Mode of Operation (MOP) in the DIO Base Object. The flag is defined only for MOP value between 0 to 6. </t> <t> For a MOP value of 7, a nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the RPI 0x23 option. </t> <t> As stated in <xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" format="default"/>, the DODAG Configuration option is present in DIO messages. The DODAG Configuration option distributes configuration information. It is generally static, and it does not change within the DODAG. This information is configured at the DODAG root and distributed throughout the DODAG with the DODAG Configuration option. Nodes other than the DODAG root do not modify this information when propagating the DODAG Configuration option. </t> <t> Currently, the DODAG Configuration option in <xreftarget="RFC6550"/> states: "thetarget="RFC6550" format="default"/> states that the unused bitsMUST"<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be initialized to zero by the sender andMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored by thereceiver".receiver." If the flag is received with a valuezero (whichzero, which is thedefault),default, then new nodes will remainin RFC6553 Compatible Mode;compatible with RFC 6553 -- originating traffic with theold-RPIold RPI Option Type(0x63) value.value (0x63). If the flag is received with a value of 1, then the value for the RPL OptionMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0x23. </t> <t> Bit number three of theflagFlags field in the DODAG Configuration option is to be used as shown in <xreftarget="fig_RPIflagday2"/>target="fig_RPIflagday2" format="default"/> (which is the same as <xreftarget="fig_RPIflagdayConfOption"/>target="fig_RPIflagdayConfOption" format="default"/> in <xreftarget="iana"/>target="iana" format="default"/> and is shown here for convenience): </t><t> <figure title="DODAG<table anchor="fig_RPIflagday2"> <name>DODAG ConfigurationoptionOption Flag toindicateIndicate theRPI-flag-day." anchor="fig_RPIflagday2" align="center"> <artwork> <![CDATA[ +------------+-----------------+---------------+ | Bit number | Description | Reference | +------------+-----------------+---------------+ | 3 |RPI Flag Day</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Bit number</th> <th align="center">Description</th> <th align="center">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">3</td> <td align="center">RPI 0x23enable | This document | +------------+-----------------+---------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>enable</td> <td align="center">This document</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> In the case of reboot, the node (6LN or 6LR) does not remember the RPI Option Type (i.e., whether or not the flag is set), so the node will not trigger DIO messages until a DIO message is receivedindicatingthat indicates the RPI value to be used. The node will use the value 0x23 if the network supports this feature. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Updatesnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Updates toRFC6553:RFC 6553: Indicating thenewNew RPI OptionType.">Type</name> <t> This modification is required in order to be able to send, for example, IPv6 packets from aRPL-Aware-LeafRPL-aware leaf to a RPL-unaware node through the Internet (see <xref target="sm-Ral2i"/>),format="default"/>) without requiring IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation. </t> <t> <xreftarget="RFC6553"/> (Section 6, Page 7) statestarget="RFC6553" section="6" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> states, as shown in <xref target="fig_RPIOption"/>,format="default"/>, that in the Option Type field of the RPL Option, the twohigh orderhigh-order bits must be set to '01' and the third bit is equal to '1'. The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node must discard the packet if it doesn't recognize the Option Type, and the third bit indicates that the Option Data may change in route. The remaining bits serve as the Option Type. </t><t> <figure title="Option<table anchor="fig_RPIOption"> <name>Option Type in RPLOption." anchor="fig_RPIOption" align="center"> <artwork> <![CDATA[ +-------+-------------------+----------------+-----------+ | Hex | Binary Value | Description | Reference | + Value +-------------------+ + + | | act | chg | rest | | | +-------+-----+-----+-------+----------------+-----------+ | 0x63 | 01 | 1 | 00011 | RPL Option | [RFC6553] | +-------+-----+-----+-------+----------------+-----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Option</name> <thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Hex Value</th> <th rowspan="1" colspan="3" align="center">Binary Value</th> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Description</th> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Reference</th> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">act</th> <th align="center">chg</th> <th align="center">rest</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">0x63</td> <td align="center">01</td> <td align="center">1</td> <td align="center">00011</td> <td align="center">RPL Option</td> <td align="center"><xref target="RFC6553" format="default"/></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> This document illustrates that it is not always possible to know for sure at the sourcethatwhether a packet willonlytravel only within the RPL domain ormaywhether it will leave it.</t><t></t> <t> At the time <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>target="RFC6553" format="default"/> was published, leaking a Hop-by-Hop Options header in the outer IPv6 header chain could potentially impact core routers in theinternet.Internet. So at that time, it was decided to encapsulate any packet with a RPL Option using IPv6-in-IPv6 in all cases where it was unclear whether the packet would remain within the RPL domain. In the exception case where a packet would still leak, the Option Type would ensure that the first router in the Internet that does not recognize the option would drop the packet and protect the rest of the network.</t><t></t> <t> Even with <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>,target="RFC8138" format="default"/>, where the IPv6-in-IPv6 header is compressed, this approach yields extra bytes in a packet; this means consuming moreenergy,energy and more bandwidth, incurring higher chances oflossloss, and possibly causing a fragmentation at the 6LoWPAN level. This impacts the daily operation of constrained devices for a case that generally does not happen and would not heavily impact the core anyway.</t><t></t> <t> While the intention was and remains that the Hop-by-Hop Options header with a RPL Option should be confined within the RPL domain, this specification modifies this behavior in order to reduce the dependency on IPv6-in-IPv6 and protect the constrained devices.Section 4 of<xreftarget="RFC8200"/>target="RFC8200" section="4" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> clarifies thebehaviourbehavior of routers in the Internet as follows: "it is now expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to doso". </t><t>so."</t> <t> When unclear about the travel of a packet, it becomes preferable for a source not to encapsulate, accepting the fact that the packet may leave the RPL domain on its way to its destination. In that event, the packet should reach its destination and should not be discarded by the first node that does not recognize the RPL Option.ButHowever, with the current value of the Option Type, if a node in the Internet is configured to process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, and if such a node encounters anoptionOption Type with the first two bits set to 01 and the node conforms to <xreftarget="RFC8200"/>,target="RFC8200" format="default"/>, it will drop the packet. Host systems should do the same, irrespective of the configuration. </t> <t> Thus, this document updates the Option Type of the RPL Option <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>,target="RFC6553" format="default"/>, naming it RPI Option Type forsimplicity, tosimplicity (<xreftarget="fig_RPIOption_new"/>):target="fig_RPIOption_new" format="default"/>): the two high order bitsMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to'00''00', and the third bit is equal to '1'. The first two bits indicate that the IPv6 nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> skip over this option and continue processing the header (<xreftarget="RFC8200"/> Section 4.2)target="RFC8200" section="4.2" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>) if it doesn't recognize the Option Type, and the third bit continues to be set to indicate that the Option Data may change en route. The rightmost five bits remain at 0x3(00011). This ensures that a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the RPL Option. </t> <t> With the new Option Type, if an IPv6 (intermediate) node(RPL-not-capable)(RPL unaware) receives a packet with a RPL Option, it should ignore the Hop-by-Hop RPL Option (skip over this option and continue processing the header). This is relevant, as it was mentioned previously, in the case that there is a flow from RAL to Internet (see <xref target="sm-Ral2i"/>).format="default"/>). </t> <t> This is a significant update to <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>.target="RFC6553" format="default"/>. </t><t> <figure title="Revised<table anchor="fig_RPIOption_new"> <name>Revised Option Type in RPLOption. (*)represents this document" anchor="fig_RPIOption_new" align="center"> <artwork> <![CDATA[ +-------+-------------------+-------------+------------+ | Hex | Binary Value | Description | Reference | + Value +-------------------+ + + | | act | chg | rest | | | +-------+-----+-----+-------+-------------+------------+ | 0x23 | 00 | 1 | 00011 | RPL Option |[RFCXXXX](*)| +-------+-----+-----+-------+-------------+------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> <t> Without the signaling described below,Option</name> <thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Hex Value</th> <th rowspan="1" colspan="3" align="center">Binary Value</th> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Description</th> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Reference</th> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">act</th> <th align="center">chg</th> <th align="center">rest</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">0x23</td> <td align="center">00</td> <td align="center">1</td> <td align="center">00011</td> <td align="center">RPL Option</td> <td align="center">This document</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> Without the signaling described below, this change would otherwise create a lack of interoperation (flag day) for existing networkswhichthat are currently using 0x63 as the RPI Option Type value. A move to 0x23 will not be understood by those networks. It is suggested that RPL implementations accept both 0x63 and 0x23 when processing the header. </t> <t> When forwarding packets, implementationsSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use the same value of RPI Type as was received. This is required because the RPI Option Type does not change en route (<xreftarget="RFC8200"/> - Section 4.2).target="RFC8200" section="4.2" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>). It allows the network to be incrementally upgraded and allows the DODAG root to know which parts of the network have been upgraded. </t> <t> When originating new packets, implementations should have an option to determine which value to originatewith, thiswith. This option is controlled by theDIODODAG Configuration option(Section <xref target="update6550"/>).(<xref target="update6550" format="default"/>). </t> <!-- [auth] A network which is switching from straight 6LoWPAN compression mechanism to those described in <xref target="RFC8138" /> will experience a flag day in the data compression anyway, and if possible this change can be deployed at the same time. </t--> <t> The change of RPI Option Type from 0x63 to0x23,0x23 makes all<xref target="RFC8200"/> Section 4.2 compliantnodes that are compliant with <xref target="RFC8200" section="4.2" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> tolerant of the RPL artifacts. There is no longer a need to remove the artifacts when sending traffic to the Internet. This change clarifies when to use IPv6-in-IPv6headers,headers and how to address them:Thethe Hop-by-Hop Options header containing the RPIMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> always be added when 6LRs originate packets (without IPv6-in-IPv6 headers), and IPv6-in-IPv6 headersMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> always be added when a 6LR finds that it needs to insert a Hop-by-Hop Options header containing the RPL Option. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header is to be addressed to the RPL root when on the way up, and to theend-hostend host when on the way down. </t> <t> In thenon-storingNon-Storing case, dealing withnot-RPL awareRPL-unaware leaf nodes is much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the root node. </t> <t> The 6LBR can recognizenot-RPL awareRPL-unaware leaf nodes because it will receive a DAO about that node from the 6LR immediately above thatnot-RPL awareRPL-unaware node. </t> <t> Thenon-storingNon-Storing mode case does not require thetypeType change from 0x63 to 0x23, as the root can always create the right packet. ThetypeType change does not adversely affect thenon-storing case.(seeNon-Storing case (see <xreftarget="update6550"/>)target="update6550" format="default"/>). </t> <!-- [auth] <t> In general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, when it has the <xref target="RFC6553" /> RPL Option Header known as the RPI or <xref target="RFC6554" /> RH33 Extension Header (S)RH3. Because of <xref target="RFC8200"/> the RPI Hop-by-Hop optionMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be left in place even if the end host does not understand it. </t> --> </section> <sectiontitle="Updatesnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Updates toRFC8138:RFC 8138: Indicating thewayWay todecompressDecompress with thenewNew RPI OptionType.">Type</name> <t> This modification is required in order to be able to decompress the RPL Option with the new Option Type of 0x23. </t> <t> The RPI-6LoRH header provides a compressed form for the RPL RPI; see <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>, Section 6. Atarget="RFC8138" section="6" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>. A node that is decompressing this headerMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> decompress using the RPI Option Type that is currentlyactive:active, that is, a choice between 0x23 (new) and 0x63 (old).TheThe node will know which to use based upon the presence of the flag in the DODAG Configuration option defined in <xref target="update6550"/>. E.g. Ifformat="default"/>. For example, if the network is in 0x23 mode (by DIO option), then it should be decompressed to 0x23. </t> <t> <xref target="RFC8138"/> section 7section="7" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/> documents how to compress the IPv6-in-IPv6 header. </t> <t> There are potential significant advantages to having a single code path that always processes IPv6-in-IPv6 headers with no conditional branches. </t> <t> In StoringMode,mode, the scenarios where the flow goes from RAL to RUL and RUL to RUL include compression of the IPv6-in-IPv6 and RPI headers. Theuse of theIPv6-in-IPv6 headeris MANDATORY<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used in this case, and itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be compressedwithas specified in <xreftarget="RFC8138"/> section 7.target="RFC8138" section="7" sectionFormat="comma" format="default"/>. <xreftarget="rtghc"/>target="rtghc" format="default"/> illustrates the case in Storing mode where the packet is received from the Internet, then the root encapsulates the packet to insert the RPI. In that example, the leaf is not known to support RFC 8138, and the packet is encapsulated to the 6LR that is the parent and last hop to the final destination. </t> <figuretitle="RPIanchor="rtghc"> <name>RPI Inserted by the Root in StoringMode" anchor="rtghc"><artwork><![CDATA[Mode</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ +-+ ... -+-+ ... +-+- ... -+-+- +-+-+-+ ... +-+-+ ... -+++ ... +-... |11110001|SRH-6LoRH| RPI- |IP-in-IP| NH=1 |11110CPP| UDP | UDP |Page 1 |Type1 S=0| 6LoRH |6LoRH |LOWPAN_IPHC| UDP | hdr |Payld +-+ ... -+-+ ... +-+- ... -+-+-.+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+ ... -+ ... +-... <-4bytes-> <- RFC 6282 -> No RPL artifact]]></artwork></figure>]]></artwork> </figure> <t> In <xreftarget="rtghc"/>,target="rtghc" format="default"/>, the source of the IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is theRoot,root, so it is elided in the IP-in-IP 6LoRH. The destination is the parent 6LR of the destination of the inner packet so it cannot be elided. It is placed as the single entry inan SRH-6LoRHa Source Route Header 6LoRH (SRH-6LoRH) as the first 6LoRH. There is a single entry so the SRH-6LoRH Size is0.zero. In that example, thetypeType is 1 so the 6LR address is compressed to2two bytes.ItThis resultsthatin the total length of the SRH-6LoRHis 4being four bytes.Follows theThe RPI-6LoRH and then the IP-in-IP6LoRH.6LoRH follow. When the IP-in-IP 6LoRH is removed, all the router headers that precede it are also removed. The Paging Dispatch <xreftarget="RFC8025"/>target="RFC8025" format="default"/> may also be removed if there was no previous Page change to a Page other than 0 or 1, since and in Page 1. The resulting packet to the destination is the inner packet compressed with <xreftarget="RFC6282"/>.target="RFC6282" format="default"/>. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Sample/reference topology">anchor="sec_ref_topo" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Reference Topology</name> <t> A RPL network in general is composed of a 6LBR, a Backbone Router (6BBR), a6LR6LR, and a 6LN as a leaf logically organized in a DODAG structure. </t> <t> <xreftarget="fig_CommonTopology"/>target="fig_CommonTopology" format="default"/> shows the reference RPLTopologytopology for this document. Theletters above thenodes aretherelabeled with letters so that they may be referenced in subsequent sections. In the figure, 6LR represents a full router node. The 6LN is aRPL aware router,RPL-aware router or host (as a leaf). Additionally, for simplification purposes, it is supposed that the 6LBR has direct access to Internet and is the root of the DODAG, thus the 6BBR is not present in the figure. </t> <t> The 6LN leaves(RAL)marked as RAL (F,HH, and I) are RPL nodes with no children hosts. </t> <t> The leaves marked as RUL (G and J) are devices that do not speak RPL at all(not-RPL-aware),(RPL unaware), but useRouter-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DACRouter Advertisements, 6LoWPAN Duplicate Address Request and Duplicate Address Confirmation (DAR/DAC), and 6LoWPANNDNeighbor Discovery (ND) only to participate in the network <xreftarget="RFC8505"/>.target="RFC8505" format="default"/>. In thedocumentdocument, these leaves (G and J) are also referred to as a RUL. </t> <t> The 6LBR("A")(A) in the figure is the root of the Global DODAG. </t><t><figuretitle="A referenceanchor="fig_CommonTopology"> <name>A Reference RPLTopology." anchor="fig_CommonTopology" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[Topology</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ +------------+ | INTERNET ----------+ | | | +------------+ | | | | A | +-------+ |6LBR | +-----------|(root) |-------+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | | | | B |C +---|---+ +---|---+ | 6LR | | 6LR | +---------| |--+ +--- ---+ | +-------+ | | +-------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | D | E | | +-|-----+ +---|---+ | | | 6LR | | 6LR | | | | | +------ | | | +---|---+ | +---|---+ | | | | | | | | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I | J | F | | G | H | | +-----+-+ +-|-----+ +---|--+ +---|---+ +---|---+ | RAL | | RUL | | RAL | | RAL | | RUL | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | | 6LN | +-------+ +-------+ +------+ +-------+ +-------+]]> </artwork></figure> </t>]]></artwork> </figure> </section> <sectiontitle="Use cases">anchor="sec_use_cases" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Use Cases</name> <t> In the dataplaneplane, a combination ofRFC6553, RFC6554RFC 6553, RFC 6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation are going to be analyzed for a number of representative traffic flows. </t> <t> The use cases describe the communication in the following cases:- Between RPL-aware-nodes</t> <ul> <li>Between RPL-aware nodes with the root(6LBR) - Between RPL-aware-nodes(6LBR)</li> <li>Between RPL-aware nodes with theInternet - BetweenInternet</li> <li>Between RUL nodes within the LLN(e.g.(e.g., see <xref target="sm-nRal2root"/>) - Insideformat="default"/>)</li> <li>Inside of the LLN when the final destination address resides outside of the LLN(e.g.(e.g., see <xref target="sm-nRal2i"/>). </t>format="default"/>)</li> </ul> <t> The use cases are as follows: </t><t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li><t> Interaction betweenLeafleaf andRoot:root: </t><t> <list> <t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to root</t> <t></li> <li> root to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to root</t> <t></li> <li> root to RUL</t> </list> </t> <t></li> </ul></li> <li><t> Interaction betweenLeafleaf and Internet: </t><t> <list> <t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to Internet</t> <t></li> <li> Internet to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to Internet</t> <t></li> <li> Internet to RUL</t> </list> </t></li> </ul></li> <li> <t> Interaction between leaves: </t><t> <list> <t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RAL to RUL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to RUL</t> </list> </t></li> </ul></li> </ul> <t> This document is consistent with the rule that aHeaderheader cannot be inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.format="default"/>. </t> <!-- [auth] <t> However, unlike <xref target="RFC6553" />, the Hop-by-Hop Option Header used for the RPI artifact has the first two bits set to '00'. This means that the RPI artifact will be ignored when received by a host or router that does not understand that option ( Section 4.2 <xref target="RFC8200" />). </t> <t> This means that when the no-drop RPI option code 0x23 is used, a packet that leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or that leaves the LLN entirely) will not be discarded when it contains the [RFC6553] RPL Hop-by-Hop option known as RPI. Thus, the RPI Hop-by-Hop option is left in place even if the end host does not understand it. </t> <t> NOTE: No clear attack has been described when the RPI information is released to the Internet. At a minimum, it is clear that the RPI option would waste some network bandwidth when it escapes. This is traded off against the savings in the LLN by not having to encapsulate the packet in order to remove the artifact. Please check the Security Considerations sections <xref target="Security"/> for further details. </t> --> <t> As therankRank information in the RPI artifact is changed at each hop, it will typically be zero when it arrives at the DODAG root. The DODAG rootMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> force it to zero when passing the packet out to the Internet. The Internet will therefore not see any SenderRank information. </t> <t> Despite being legal to leave the RPI artifact in place, an intermediate router that needs to add an extension header(e.g.(e.g., RH3 or RPL Option)MUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> still encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP header. The new header is placed after this new outer IP header. </t> <t> A corollary is that an intermediate router can remove an RH3 or RPL Option only if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6Headerheader that is addressedTO<em>to</em> this intermediate router. When doing the above, the whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may beadded). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being addressed to the next hop router using link-local address.added.) </t> <t> Both the RPL Option and the RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by routers on the path of the packet without the need to add and remove an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this modification in mind, and both the RPL RH3 and the RPL Option are marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsecAH security headerAuthentication Header (AH) can be applied across these headers, but itcan notcannot secure the valueswhichthat mutate. </t> <t> The RPIMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present in every single RPL data packet. </t> <t> Prior to <xref target="RFC8138"/>,format="default"/>, there was significant interest in creating an exception to this rule and removing the RPI fordownwardDownward flows innon-storingNon-Storing mode. This exception covered a very small number of cases, and caused significant interoperability challenges while adding significant interest in the code and tests. The ability to compress the RPI down to three bytes or less removes much of the pressure to optimize this anyfurther <xref target="I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane" />.further. </t> <t> Throughout the following subsections, the examples are described in moredetailsdetail in the first subsections, and more concisely in the later ones. </t> <t> Theusesuse cases are delineated based on the following IPV6 and RPL mandates: </t><t> <list> <t> The<ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> <t>The RPI has to be in every packet that traverses theLLN. </t> <t> -LLN.</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> Because of the above requirement, packets from the Internet have to be encapsulated.</t> <t> -</li> <li> AHeaderheader cannot be inserted or removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed.</t> <t> -</li> <li> Extension headers may not be added or removed except by the sender or the receiver.</t> <t> -</li> <li> RPI and RH3 headers may be modified by routers on the path of the packet without the need to add and remove an encapsulating header.</t> <t> - an</li> <li> An RH3 or RPL Option can only be removed by an intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6Header,header, which is addressed to the intermediate router.</t> <t> - Non-storing</li> <li> The Non-Storing mode requires downstream encapsulation by the root for RH3.</t> </list> </t></li> </ul> </li> </ul> <t> Theusesuse cases are delineated based on the following assumptions: </t><t> <list> <t> This<ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> <t>This document assumes that the LLN is using the no-drop RPI Option Type(0x23). </t> <t> -(0x23).</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> Each IPv6 node (including Internet routers) obeys <xreftarget="RFC8200"/>,target="RFC8200" format="default"/>, so that the 0x23 RPI Option Type can be safely inserted.</t> <t> -</li> <li> All 6LRs obey <xreftarget="RFC8200"/>. </t> <t> -target="RFC8200" format="default"/>. </li> <li> The RPI is ignored at the IPv6dstdestination (dst) node (RUL).</t> <t> -</li> <li> In theusesuse cases, we assume that the RAL supports IP-in-IP encapsulation.</t> <t> -</li> <li> In theusesuse cases, we don't assume that the RUL supports IP-in-IP encapsulation.</t> <t> -</li> <li> For traffic leaving a RUL, if the RUL adds an opaqueRPIRPI, then the 6LR as a RPLborder router SHOULDBorder Router <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> rewrite the RPI to indicate the selected Instance and set the flags.</t> <t> -</li> <li> The description for RALs applies to RAN in general.</t> <t> - Non-constrained</li> <li> Unconstrained uses of RPL are not in scope of this document.</t> <t> -</li> <li> Compression is based on <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>. </t> <t> -target="RFC8138" format="default"/>. </li> <li> The flow label <xreftarget="RFC6437"/>target="RFC6437" format="default"/> is not needed in RPL.</t> </list> </t></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </section> <sectiontitle="Storing mode">anchor="sec_sm" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Storing Mode</name> <t> InstoringStoring mode (SM) (fully stateful), the sender can determine if the destination is inside the LLN by looking if the destination address is matched by the DIO's Prefix Information Option (PIO) option. </t> <t>The following table (<xref target="fig_EncStoMode"/>)<xref target="fig_EncStoMode" format="default"/> itemizes which headers are needed in each of the following scenarios. It indicates whether an IPv6-in-IPv6 header must be added andwhatto which destination it must beaddressed to: (1)addressed: </t> <ol> <li> the final destination (the RAL node that is the target(tgt)), (2)(tgt)),</li> <li> the "root", or(3) the</li> <li>the 6LR parent of aRUL. </t>RUL.</li> </ol> <t> In cases where no IPv6-in-IPv6 header is needed, the column states "No", and the destination is N/A (Not Applicable). If the IPv6-in-IPv6 header is needed, the column shows "must". </t> <t> In all cases, the RPI is needed, since it identifies inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In general, the RH3 is not needed because it is not used instoringStoring mode. However, there is one scenario (from the root to the RUL in SM) where the RH3 can be used to point at the RUL (<xreftarget="Storing-root2notrplnoIPIP"/>).target="Storing-root2notrplnoIPIP" format="default"/>). </t> <t> The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN. The root refers to the 6LBR (see <xref target="fig_CommonTopology"/>).format="default"/>). </t><t> <figure title="Table of IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation<table anchor="fig_EncStoMode"> <name>IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in Storingmode." anchor="fig_EncStoMode" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------------------+--------------+------------+----------------+ |Mode</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Interaction between</th> <th align="center">Use Case</th> <th align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6</th> <th align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center" rowspan="4">Leaf - Root</th> <td align="center">RAL to root</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">N/A</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">root to RAL</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">N/A</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">root to RUL</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">RUL to root</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center" rowspan="4">Leaf - Internet</th> <td align="center">RAL to Int</td> <td align="center">may</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Int to RAL</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">RAL (tgt)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">RUL to Int</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Int to RUL</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center" rowspan="7">Leaf - Leaf</th> <td align="center">RAL to RAL</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">N/A</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RAL to RUL</td> <td align="center">No(up)</td> <td align="center">N/A</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RUL to RAL</td> <td align="center">must(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">RAL</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RUL to RUL</td> <td align="center">must(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Storing Mode: Interaction between| Use Case |IPv6-in-IPv6|IPv6-in-IPv6 dst| +---------------------+--------------+------------+----------------+ | | RAL to root | No | N/A | + +--------------+------------+----------------+ |Leaf- Root | root toand Root</name> <t> This section describes the communication flow in Storing mode (SM) between the following: </t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL| No | N/A | + +--------------+------------+----------------+ | | root to RUL | must | 6LR | + +--------------+------------+----------------+ | | RULto root| must | root | +---------------------+--------------+------------+----------------+ | | RAL to Int | may |</li> <li> root| + +--------------+------------+----------------+ | Leaf - Internet | Intto RAL| must | RAL (tgt) | + +--------------+------------+----------------+ | |</li> <li> RUL toInt | must |root| + +--------------+------------+----------------+ | | Int</li> <li> root to RUL| must | 6LR | +---------------------+--------------+------------+----------------+ | | RAL to RAL | No | N/A | | Leaf - Leaf +--------------+------------+----------------+ | |</li> </ul> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RAL toRUL | No(up) | N/A | | + +------------+----------------+ | | | must(down) | 6LR | | +--------------+------------+----------------+ | | RULRoot</name> <t> In Storing mode, RPI <xref target="RFC6553" format="default"/> is used toRAL | must(up) | root | | | +------------+----------------+ | | | must(down) | RAL | | +--------------+------------+----------------+ | | RUL to RUL | must(up) | root | | | +------------+----------------+ | | | must(down) | 6LR | |---------------------+--------------+------------+----------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> <section title="Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root"> <t> In this section is described the communication flow in storing mode (SM) between, </t> <t> <list> <t> RAL to root </t> <t> root to RAL </t> <t> RUL to root </t> <t> root to RUL </t> </list> </t> <!-- 5.1. Example of Flow from RAL to root !--> <section title="SM: Example of Flow from RAL to Root"> <t> In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information instanceID and rank information. </t> <t> In this case the flow comprises: </t> <t>send the RPLInstanceID and Rank information. </t> <t> In this case, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL (6LN)-->--> 6LR_i--> root(6LBR)--> root (6LBR) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F (6LN)-->--> Node D (6LR_i)-->--> Node B(6LR_i)-->(6LR_i) --> Node Aroot(6LBR)root (6LBR) </t> <t> The RAL (Node F) inserts the RPI, and sends the packet to the 6LR (NodeD)D), which decrements therankRank in the RPI and sends the packet up. When the packet arrives at the 6LBR (Node A), the RPI is removed and the packet is processed. </t> <t> No IPv6-in-IPv6 header is required. </t> <t> The RPI can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is addressed to the 6LBR. The RAL must know that it is communicating with the 6LBR to make use of this scenario. The RAL can know the address of the 6LBR because it knows the address of the root via the DODAGID in the DIO messages. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-summary-headers"/>target="Storing-summary-headers" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-summary-headers"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL toroot" anchor="Storing-summary-headers" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_i | 6LBR | | | src | | dst | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Added | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Modified | -- | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Removed | -- | -- | RPI | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- section 7.2. !--><sectiontitle="SM:anchor="Storing-root2ral" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from Root toRAL" anchor="Storing-root2ral">RAL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RAL (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node Aroot(6LBR) -->root (6LBR) --> Node B (6LR_i)-->--> Node D (6LR_i)-->--> Node F (6LN) </t> <t> In thiscasecase, the 6LBR inserts RPI and sends the packetdown, thedown. The 6LRis going to incrementincrements therankRank in the RPI (it examines the RPLInstanceID to identify the right forwardingtable), thetable). The packet is processed in theRALRAL, and the RPI is removed. </t> <t> No IPv6-in-IPv6 header is required. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-root2leaf"/>target="Storing-root2leaf" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-root2leaf"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders fromrootRoot toRAL" anchor="Storing-root2leaf" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------+-------+-----+ | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | RAL | | | src | | dst | +-----------+------+-------+-----+ | Added | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+------+-------+-----+ | Modified | -- | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+------+-------+-----+ | Removed | -- | -- | RPI | | headers | | | | +-----------+------+-------+-----+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+------+-------+-----+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">6LBR src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- section 7.3. !--><sectiontitle="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from Root toRUL">RUL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (6LBR)-->--> Node B (6LR_i)-->--> Node E (6LR_n)-->--> Node G (RUL) </t> <t> 6LR_i (Node B) represents the intermediate routers from the source (6LBR) to the destination (RUL), and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the 6LBR (Node A) to the RUL (Node G). </t> <t> The 6LBR will encapsulate the packet in an IPv6-in-IPv6header,header and prepend an RPI. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header is addressed to the 6LR parent of the RUL (6LR_n). The 6LR parent of the RUL removes the header and sends the packet to the RUL. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-root2notrpl"/>target="Storing-root2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-root2notrpl"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders fromrootRoot toRUL" anchor="Storing-root2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LR_n | RUL | | | src | | | dst | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Added | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | RPI | | | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Modified | -- | | -- | -- | | headers | | RPI | | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Removed | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | RPI | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Untouched | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">6LBR src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> IP-in-IP encapsulation may be avoided forRoot to RULroot-to-RUL communication. In SM, it can be replaced by a loose RH3 header that indicates theRUL, inRUL. In whichcasecase, the packet is routed to the 6LR as a normal SM operation, then the 6LR forwards to the RUL based on the RH3, and the RUL ignores both the consumed RH3 and the RPI, as in Non-StoringMode.mode. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-root2notrplnoIPIP"/>target="Storing-root2notrplnoIPIP" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this scenario. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-root2notrplnoIPIP"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders fromrootRoot to RUL withoutencapsulation" anchor="Storing-root2notrplnoIPIP" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LR_n |Encapsulation</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">6LBR src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i<br/>i=(1,..,n-1)</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI, RH3</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3(consumed)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RH3</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3 (both ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="sm-nRal2root" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RUL| | | src | i=(1,..,n-1) | | dst | | | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Added | RPI, RH3 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | -- | | headers | | | RH3(consumed) | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Untouched | -- | RH3 | -- | RPI, RH3 | | headers | | | | (both | | | | | | ignored) | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> <section anchor="sm-nRal2root" title="SM: Example of Flow from RUL to Root"> <t> In this case the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6to Root</name> <t> In this case, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node)-->--> 6LR_1-->--> 6LR_i-->--> root (6LBR) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G (RUL)-->--> Node E(6LR_1)-->(6LR_1) --> Node B(6LR_i)-->(6LR_i) --> Node Aroot(6LBR)root (6LBR) </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source (RUL) to the destination (6LBR), and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the RUL to the 6LBR. </t> <t> When the packet arrives from the RUL (Node G) to 6LR_1 (Node E), the 6LR_1 will encapsulate the packet in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header with an RPI. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header is addressed to the root (Node A). The root removes the header and processes the packet. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-notrpl2root"/> shows the table thattarget="Storing-notrpl2root" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case where the IPv6-in-IPv6 header is addressed to the root (Node A). </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-notrpl2root"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toroot." anchor="Storing-notrpl2root" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+ | Header | RUL | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR dst | | | src | | | | | | node | | | | +-----------+------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+ | Added | -- | IP6-IP6 | | -- | | headers | | RPI | -- | | +-----------+------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+ | Modified | -- | -- | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+ | Removed | -- | -- | --- | IP6-IP6 | | headers | | | | RPI | +-----------+------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </section> <sectiontitle=" SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Interaction between Leaf andInternet.">Internet</name> <t>In thisThis sectionis describeddescribes the communication flow instoringStoring mode (SM)between,between the following: </t><t> <list> <t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to Internet</t> <t></li> <li> Internet to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to Internet</t> <t></li> <li> Internet to RUL</t> </list> </t></li> </ul> <section anchor="sm-Ral2i"title="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RAL toInternet">Internet</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL (6LN)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> Internet </t> <t> For example, the communication flow could be: Node F (RAL)-->--> Node D(6LR_i)-->(6LR_i) --> Node B(6LR_i)-->(6LR_i) --> Node Aroot(6LBR) -->root (6LBR) --> Internet </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source (RAL) to the root (6LBR), and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the RAL to the 6LBR. </t> <t> RPL information from RFC 6553 may go out to Internet as it will be ignored by nodeswhichthat have not been configured to beRPIRPL aware. No IPv6-in-IPv6 header is required. <!-- [auth] Beginning of Section 6 says "The DODAG rootMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> force it to zero when passing the packet out to the Internet." --> </t> <t> On the other hand, the RAL may insert the RPI encapsulated inaan IPv6-in-IPv6 header to the root. Thus, the root removes the RPI andsendsends the packet to the Internet. </t><t><aside><t> Note: In this use case,it is useda leaf nodeas a leaf,is used, but this use case canbealso be applicable to anyRPL-aware-nodeRPL-aware node type(e.g. 6LR)(e.g., 6LR). </t> </aside> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-rpl2int"/>target="Storing-rpl2int" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when there is no encapsulation. Note that the RPI is modified by 6LBR to set the SenderRank to zero in the case that it is not already zero.The<xreftarget="Storing-rpl2intIPIP"/>target="Storing-rpl2intIPIP" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed when encapsulation to the root takes place. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-rpl2int"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL to Internet withno encapsulation" anchor="Storing-rpl2int" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | | | src | | | dst | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Added | RPI | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | | headers | | | | (Ignored) | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ ]]></artwork></figure>No Encapsulation</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">Internet dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI (Ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t> <!-- [auth] RPI touched by 6LBR? set DagRank to 0? --> </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-rpl2intIPIP"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL to Internet withencapsulationEncapsulation to theroot (6LBR)." anchor="Storing-rpl2intIPIP" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet dst | | | src | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Added | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | RPI | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Modified | -- | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Removed | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | RPI | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Untouched | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Root (6LBR)</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">Internet dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- section 7.6 --><sectiontitle="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from Internet toRAL">RAL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> Internet-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RAL (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Internet-->--> Node Aroot(6LBR) -->root (6LBR) --> Node B (6LR_1)-->--> Node D (6LR_n)-->--> Node F (RAL) </t> <t> When the packet arrives from Internet to6LBR6LBR, the RPI is added in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header (with the IPv6-in-IPv6 destination address set to the RAL) and sent to the 6LR, which modifies therankRank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at the RAL, the packet is decapsulated, which removes the RPI before the packet is processed. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-int2rpl"/> shows the table thattarget="Storing-int2rpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-int2rpl"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from Internet toRAL." anchor="Storing-int2rpl"RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">Internet src</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center"><artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i |RALdst | | | src | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Added | -- | IP6-IP6(RPI) | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Modified | -- | -- | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6(RPI) | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section><!-- section 7.6 --><section anchor="sm-nRal2i"title="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RUL toInternet">Internet</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node)-->--> 6LR_1-->--> 6LR_i-->root--> root (6LBR)-->--> Internet </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G(RUL)-->(RUL) --> Node E(6LR_1)-->(6LR_1) --> Node B (6lR_i)-->--> Node Aroot(6LBR) -->root (6LBR) --> Internet </t> <t> The node 6LR_1 (i=1) will add anIPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)IPv6-in-IPv6 (RPI) header addressed to the root such that the root can remove the RPI before passing upwards. In the intermediate 6LR, therankRank in the RPI is modified. </t> <t> The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero so that the packet can be better compressed through the LLN. The 6LBR will set the flow label of the packet to a non-zero value when sending to theInternet, for detailsInternet. For details, check <xreftarget="RFC6437"/>.target="RFC6437" format="default"/>. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-notrpl2int"/> shows the table thattarget="Storing-notrpl2int" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-notrpl2int"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toInternet." anchor="Storing-notrpl2int" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+-------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------+ | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR |Internet| | |Internet</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">IPv6 src| | [i=2,...,n] | | dst | | | node | | | | | | | (RUL) | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------+ | Added | -- |IP6-IP6(RPI)| -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------+ | Modified| -- | -- | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6(RPI)| -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>(RUL)</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_i i=(2,..,n)</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">Internet dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from Internet toRUL. ">RUL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> Internet-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Internet-->--> Node Aroot(6LBR) -->root (6LBR) --> Node B(6LR_i)-->(6LR_i) --> Node E (6LR_n)-->--> Node G (RUL) </t> <t> The 6LBR will have to add an RPI within an IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulating header is addressed to the 6LR parent of the RUL. </t> <t> Further details about this are mentioned in <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves"/>,target="RFC9010" format="default"/>, which specifies RPL routing for a 6LN acting as a plain host andnotbeingawareunaware of RPL. </t> <t> The 6LBR may set the flow label on the inner IPv6-in-IPv6 header to zero in order to aid in compression <xreftarget="RFC8138"/><xref target="RFC6437"/>.target="RFC8138" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC6437" format="default"/>. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-int2notrpl"/> shows the table thattarget="Storing-int2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title=" SM:<table anchor="Storing-int2notrpl"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from Internet toRUL." anchor="Storing-int2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------+ | Header |Inter- | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LR_n | RUL | | | net | |[i=1,..,n-1] | | dst | | | src | | | | | | | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------+ | Inserted| -- |IP6-IP6(RPI)| -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------+ | Modified| -- | -- | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6(RPI)| -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+------------+--------------+-------------+-------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">Internet src</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_i i=(1,..,n-1)</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Interaction between Leaf andLeaf">Leaf</name> <t>In thisThis sectionis describeddescribes the communication flow instoringStoring mode (SM)between,between the following: </t><t> <list> <t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RAL to RUL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to RUL</t> </list> </t> <!-- section 7.9 --></li> </ul> <section anchor="storingRALtoRAL"title="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RAL toRAL">RAL</name> <t> In <xreftarget="RFC6550"/>target="RFC6550" format="default"/>, RPL allows asimplesimple, one-hop optimization for bothstoringStoring andnon-storingNon-Storing networks. A node may send a packet destined to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Seesection 9 in<xreftarget="RFC6550"/>.target="RFC6550" section="9" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/>. </t> <t> When the nodes are not directly connected, thenin storing mode,the flowcomprises:comprises the following in the Storing mode: </t> <t> RAL src (6LN)-->--> 6LR_ia-->--> common parent (6LR_x)-->--> 6LR_id-->--> RAL dst (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F (RALsrc)-->src) --> Node D(6LR_ia)-->(6LR_ia) --> Node B (6LR_x)-->--> Node E (6LR_id)-->--> Node H (RAL dst) </t> <t> 6LR_ia (Node D) represents the intermediate routers from the source to the common parent(6LR_x)6LR_x (Node B), and 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the RAL (Node F) to the common parent 6LR_x (Node B). </t> <t> 6LR_id (Node E) represents the intermediate routers from the common parent(6LR_x)6LR_x (Node B) to the destination RAL (Node H), and 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the common parent (6LR_x) to the destination RAL (Node H). </t> <t> It is assumed that the two nodes are in the same RPL domain (that they share the same DODAG root). At the common parent (Node B), the direction flag ('O' flag) of the RPI is changed (from decreasing ranks to increasing ranks). </t> <t> While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or remove the RPI, so no IPv6-in-IPv6 headers are necessary. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-rpl2rpl"/>target="Storing-rpl2rpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-rpl2rpl"> <name>SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RAL toRAL" anchor="Storing-rpl2rpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+-----+--------+---------+--------+-----+ | Header |RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LR_x (common parent)</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="storingRALtononRAL" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RAL| 6LR_ia | 6LR_x | 6LR_id |to RUL</name> <t> In this case, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL| | |src| | (common | | dst | | | | | parent) | | | +-----------+-----+--------+---------+--------+-----+ | Added | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +-----------+-----+--------+---------+--------+-----+ | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | | | +-----------+-----+--------+---------+--------+-----+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | | headers | | | | | | +-----------+-----+--------+---------+--------+-----+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +-----------+-----+--------+---------+--------+-----+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> <!-- section 7.10 --> <section anchor="storingRALtononRAL" title="SM: Example of Flow from RAL to RUL"> <t> In this case the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL src (6LN) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LBR - The root-) --> 6LR_id --> RUL (IPv6(6LN) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LBR, the root) --> 6LR_id --> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F(RAL)-->(RAL) --> Node D-->--> NodeB-->B --> Node A-->Node--> Node B-->--> Node E-->--> Node G (RUL) </t> <t> 6LR_ia represents the intermediate routers from the source (RAL) to the common parent (theRoot),root), and 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the RAL to theRoot.root. </t> <t> 6LR_id (Node E) represents the intermediate routers from theRootroot (Node B) to the destination RUL (Node G). In this case, 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from theRootroot down to the destination RUL. </t> <t> In this case, the packet from the RAL goes to the 6LBR because the route to the RUL is not injected into theRPL-SM.RPL SM. Thus, the RAL inserts an RPI (RPI1) addressed to theroot(6LBR).root (6LBR). The root does not remove the RPI1 (the root cannot remove an RPI if there is no encapsulation). The root inserts anIPv6-IPv6IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation with an RPI2 and sends it to the 6LR parent of the RUL, which removes the encapsulation and RPI2 before passing the packet to the RUL. </t> <!-- [auth] section 7.10 This situation is identical to the previous situation <xref target="storingRALtoRAL" /> </t> --> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-rpl2nrpl"/>target="Storing-rpl2nrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-rpl2nrpl"> <name>SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RAL toRUL" anchor="Storing-rpl2nrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +----------+-------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Header | RAL |6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LR_m | RUL | | | src | | | | | dst | | | node | | | | | node | +----------+-------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Added | | | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | RPI1 | -- | (RPI2) | | | | | | | | | | | | +----------+-------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Modified | -- | | -- | | | -- | | headers | | RPI1 | | RPI2 | -- | | | | | | | | | | +----------+-------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Removed | -- | -- | | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | -- | | (RPI2) | | | | | | | | | | +----------+-------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ |Untouched | -- | -- | RPI1 | RPI1 | RPI1 | RPI1 | | headers | | | | | |(Ignored)| | | | | | | | | +----------+-------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">6LR_m</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI2</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1 (ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="storingnotRALtoRAL"title="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RUL toRAL">RAL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node)-->--> 6LR_ia-->--> 6LBR-->--> 6LR_id-->--> RAL dst (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G(RUL)-->(RUL) --> Node E-->--> Node B-->--> Node A-->--> Node B-->--> Node D-->--> Node F (RAL) </t> <t> 6LR_ia (Node E) represents the intermediate routers from the source (RUL) (Node G) to the root (Node A). In this case, 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source to the root. </t> <t> 6LR_id represents the intermediate routers from the root (Node A) to the destination RAL (Node F). In this case, 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the root to the destination RAL. </t> <t> The 6LR_1 (Node E) receives the packet from the RUL (Node G) and inserts the RPI (RPI1) encapsulated inaan IPv6-in-IPv6 header to the root. The root removes the outer header including the RPI (RPI1) and inserts a new RPI (RPI2) addressed to the destination RAL (Node F). </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-notrpl2rpl"/> shows the table thattarget="Storing-notrpl2rpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-notrpl2rpl"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toRAL." anchor="Storing-notrpl2rpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Header | RUL | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | RAL | | | src | | | | | dst | | | node | | | | | node | +-----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Added | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | (RPI1) | | (RPI2) | | | | | | | | | | | +-----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Modified | -- | | | -- | | -- | | headers | | -- | RPI1 | | RPI2 | | | | | | | | | | +-----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Removed | -- | | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | | headers | | -- | | (RPI1) | | (RPI2) | | | | | | | | | +-----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | | +-----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI2</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI2)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>SM: Example of Flow from RUL toRUL">RUL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 srcnode)--> 6LR_1-->node) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_ia-->--> 6LBR-->--> 6LR_id-->--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G (RULsrc)-->src) --> Node E-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node C-->--> Node J (RUL dst) </t> <t> Internal nodes 6LR_ia(e.g:(e.g., Node E or Node B) is the intermediate router from the RUL source (Node G) to the root (6LBR) (Node A). In this case, 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the RUL to the root. 6LR_1refersapplies when ia=1. </t> <t> 6LR_id (Node C) represents the intermediate routers from the root (Node A) to the destination RULdst node(Node J). In this case, 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the root to the destination RUL. </t> <t> The 6LR_1 (Node E) receives the packet from the RUL (Node G) andinsertsadds the RPI(RPI), encapsulated(RPI1) in an IPv6-in-IPv6headerencapsulation directed to the root. The root removes the outer header including the RPI (RPI1) and inserts a new RPI (RPI2) addressed to the 6LRfatherparent of the RUL. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="Storing-notrpl2notrpl"/> shows the table thattarget="Storing-notrpl2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="SM:<table anchor="Storing-notrpl2notrpl"> <name>SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toRUL" anchor="Storing-notrpl2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+----+-------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---+ | Header |RUL | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id |6LR_n |RUL| | |src | | | | | |dst| | | | | | | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---+ | Added | -- |IP6-IP6(RPI1)| -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | --| | Headers | | | | (RPI2) | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---+ |Modified | -- | -- | | -- | | -- | --| |headers | | | RPI1 | | RPI2 | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- |IP6-IP6| --| | headers | | | | (RPI1) | | (RPI2)| | +---------+----+-------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --| | headers | | | | | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------+---------+--------+-------+---+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> </section> </section> <section title="Non Storing mode"> <t> In Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) (fully source routed), theRUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI2</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </section> </section> <section anchor="sec_non-sm" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-Storing Mode</name> <t> In Non-Storing mode (Non-SM) (fully source routed), the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the connectivity of all DODAGnodes,nodes and all traffic flows through the root node. Thus, there is no need for all nodes to know about the existence of RPL-unaware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs to act if compensation is necessary fornot-RPL awareRPL-unaware receivers. </t> <t>The table (<xref<xref target="fig_table_non-storing"/>)format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed in the followingscenarios,scenarios and indicates when the RPI,RH3RH3, and IPv6-in-IPv6 header are to be inserted. The last column depicts the target destination of the IPv6-in-IPv6 header: 6LN (indicated by "RAL"), 6LR (parent of aRUL)RUL), or the root. In cases where no IPv6-in-IPv6 header is needed, the column indicates "No". There is no expectation on RPL that RPI can beomitted,omitted because it is needed for routing, quality ofserviceservice, and compression. This specification expects that an RPI is always present. The term "may(up)" means that the IPv6-in-IPv6 header may be necessary in theupwardsUpward direction. The term "must(up)" means that the IPv6-in-IPv6 header must be present in theupwardsUpward direction. The term "must(down)" means that the IPv6-in-IPv6 header must be present in thedownwardDownward direction. </t> <t> The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN (<xreftarget="fig_CommonTopology"/>).target="fig_CommonTopology" format="default"/>). Inthe table (<xref<xref target="fig_table_non-storing"/>)format="default"/>, the (1) indicates a6tisch6TiSCH case <xreftarget="RFC8180"/>,target="RFC8180" format="default"/>, where the RPI may still be needed for the RPLInstanceID to be available for priority/channel selection at each hop. </t><t> <figure title="Table that shows headers needed<table anchor="fig_table_non-storing"> <name>Headers Needed in Non-Storingmode:Mode: RPI, RH3, IPv6-in-IPv6encapsulation." anchor="fig_table_non-storing" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +--- ------------+-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ |Encapsulation</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Interaction between</th> <th align="center">Use Case</th> <th align="center">RPI</th> <th align="center">RH3</th> <th align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6</th> <th align="center">IP-in-IP dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center" rowspan="4">Leaf - Root</th> <td align="center">RAL to root</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">No</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">root to RAL</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">No</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">root to RUL</td> <td align="center">Yes (1)</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">RUL to root</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center" rowspan="4">Leaf - Internet</th> <td align="center">RAL to Int</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">may(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Int to RAL</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">RAL</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">RUL to Int</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">No</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Int to RUL</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">Yes</td> <td align="center">must</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center" rowspan="8">Leaf - Leaf</th> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RAL to RAL</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center">may(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">RAL</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RAL to RUL</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center">may(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RUL to RAL</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center">must(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">RAL</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" rowspan="2">RUL to RUL</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center" rowspan="2">Yes</td> <td align="center">must(up)</td> <td align="center">root</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">must(down)</td> <td align="center">6LR</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-Storing Mode: Interaction| Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IPv6-in-IPv6 | IP-in-IP | |between| | | | | dst | +----------------+-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | |Leaf and Root</name> <t> This section describes the communication flow in Non-Storing mode (Non-SM) between the following: </t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to root| Yes | No | No | No | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | Leaf - Root |</li> <li> root to RAL| Yes | Yes | No | No | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | root to RUL | Yes | Yes | No | 6LR | | | | (1) | | | | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | |</li> <li> RUL to root| Yes | No | must |</li> <li> root| +----------------+-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | |to RUL </li> </ul> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RAL toInt | Yes | No | may(up) | root | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ |Leaf - Internet | Int to RAL | Yes | Yes | must | RAL | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | RUL to Int | Yes | No | must | root | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | Int to RUL | Yes | Yes | must | 6LR | +----------------+-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | RAL to RAL | Yes | Yes | may(up) | root | | | | | +--------------+----------+ | | | | | must(down) | RAL | | Leaf - Leaf +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | RAL to RUL | Yes | Yes | may(up) | root | | | | | +--------------+----------+ | | | | | must(down) | 6LR | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | RUL to RAL | Yes | Yes | must(up) | root | | | | | +--------------+----------+ | | | | | must(down) | RAL | | +-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ | | RUL to RUL | Yes | Yes | must(up) | root | | | | | +--------------+----------+ | | | | | must(down) | 6LR | +----------------+-------------+-----+-----+--------------+----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> <section title="Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf and Root"> <t> In this section is described the communication flow in Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between, </t> <t> <list> <t> RAL to root </t> <t> root to RAL </t> <t> RUL to root </t> <t> root to RUL </t> </list> </t> <section title="Non-SM: Example of Flow from RAL to root"> <t> In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routingRoot</name> <t> In Non-Storing mode, the leaf node uses default routing to send traffic to the root. The RPI must be included since it contains therankRank information, which is used toavoid/detectavoid and/or detect loops. </t> <t> RAL (6LN)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> root(6LBR) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F-->--> Node D-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root) </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination. In this case, 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source (RAL) to the destination (6LBR). </t> <t> This situation is the same case asstoringStoring mode. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-summary-headers"/>target="NonStoring-summary-headers" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-summary-headers"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL toroot" anchor="NonStoring-summary-headers" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Header | RAL |Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="nsroottoRAL" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from Root to RAL</name> <t> In this case, the flow comprises: </t> <t> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i| 6LBR | | | src | | dst | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Added | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Modified | -- | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Removed | -- | -- | RPI | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> <section anchor="nsroottoRAL" title=" Non-SM: Example of Flow from root to RAL"> <t> In this case the flow comprises: </t> <t> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i -->--> RAL (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node D-->--> Node F </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination. In this case, 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source (6LBR) to the destination (RAL). </t> <t> The 6LBR inserts anRH3,RH3 and an RPI. No IPv6-in-IPv6 header is necessary as the traffic originates with aRPL awareRPL-aware node, the 6LBR. The destination is known to beRPL-awareRPL aware because the root knows the whole topology innon-storingNon-Storing mode. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-root2rpl"/>target="NonStoring-root2rpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-root2rpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders fromrootRoot toRAL" anchor="NonStoring-root2rpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+----------+----------+----------+ | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | RAL | | | src | | dst | +-----------+----------+----------+----------+ | Added | RPI, RH3 | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+----------+----------+----------+ | Modified | -- | RPI, RH3 | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+----------+----------+----------+ | Removed | -- | -- | RPI, RH3 | | headers | | | | +-----------+----------+----------+----------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | +-----------+----------+----------+----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">6LBR src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI, RH3</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle=" Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow fromrootRoot toRUL">RUL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node E-->--> Node G (RUL) </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination. In this case, 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source (6LBR) to the destination (RUL). </t> <t> In the 6LBR, the RH3 is added; it is then modified at each intermediate 6LR (6LR_1 and so on), and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n) but is left in place. When the RPI is added, the RUL, which does not understand the RPI, will ignore it (per <xreftarget="RFC8200"/>);target="RFC8200" format="default"/>); thus, encapsulation is not necessary. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-root2notrpl"/> depicts the table thattarget="NonStoring-root2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title=" Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-root2notrpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders fromrootRoot toRUL" anchor="NonStoring-root2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LR_n |RUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">6LBR src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i i=(1,..,n-1)</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI, RH3</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3(consumed)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI, RH3 (both ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL| | |to Root</name> <t> In this case, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src| i=(1,..,n-1) | | dst | | | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Added | RPI, RH3 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Modified | -- | RPI, RH3 | RPI, | -- | | headers | | | RH3(consumed) | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI, RH3 | | headers | | | | (both | | | | | | ignored) | +-----------+----------+--------------+----------------+----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> <section title="Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL to root"> <t> In this case the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR)node) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) dst </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G-->--> Node E-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root) </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination. In this case, 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source (RUL) to the destination (6LBR). For example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the RUL. </t> <t> In this case, the RPI is added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) (Node E), encapsulated in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header, and modified in the subsequent 6LRs in the flow. The RPI and the entire packet are consumed by the root. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-notrpl2root"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-notrpl2root" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2root"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toroot" anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2root" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | |RUL | | | | | Header |src | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR dst | | |node| | | | +---------+----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | Added | -- |IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)| -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +---------+----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | Modified| -- | -- | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | | +---------+----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- |IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)| | headers | | | | | +---------+----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +---------+----+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 (RPI)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Non-Storingnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-Storing Mode: Interaction between Leaf andInternet">Internet</name> <t> This sectionwill describedescribes the communication flow inNon Storing ModeNon-Storing mode (Non-SM)between:between the following: </t><t> <list> <t><ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to Internet</t> <t></li> <li> Internet to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to Internet</t> <t></li> <li> Internet to RUL</t> </list> </t></li> </ul> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RAL toInternet">Internet</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL (6LN) src-->--> 6LR_i-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> Internet dst </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F (RAL)-->--> Node D-->--> Node B-->--> Node A-->--> Internet. Having the RAL information about the RPL domain, the packet may be encapsulated to the root when the destination is not in the RPL domain of the RAL. </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination, and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source (RAL) to the 6LBR. </t> <t> In this case, the encapsulation from the RAL to the root is optional. The simplest case is when the RPI gets to the Internet (as the <xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2int"/>target="NonStoring-rpl2int" format="default"/> shows it), knowing that the Internet is going to ignore it. </t> <t> The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>,target="RFC8138" format="default"/>, and the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the Internet <xreftarget="RFC6437"/>.target="RFC6437" format="default"/>. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2int"/>target="NonStoring-rpl2int" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when no encapsulation is used.The<xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2intwithIPIP"/>target="NonStoring-rpl2intwithIPIP" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when encapsulation to the root is used. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-rpl2int"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL to Internet withno encapsulation" anchor="NonStoring-rpl2int" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | | | src | | | dst | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Added | RPI | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | | headers | | | | (Ignored) | +-----------+-----+-------+------+-----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> <t> <figure title="Non-SM:No Encapsulation</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">Internet dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI (Ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="NonStoring-rpl2intwithIPIP"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL to Internet withencapsulationEncapsulation to theroot" anchor="NonStoring-rpl2intwithIPIP" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | | | src | | | dst | +-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------+ | Added | IPv6-in-IPv6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | (RPI) | | | | +-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------+ | Modified | -- | | -- | -- | | headers | | RPI | | | +-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------+ | Removed | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6 | -- | | headers | | | (RPI) | | +-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">Internet dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">IP6v6-in-IPv6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet toRAL">RAL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> Internet-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RAL dst (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Internet-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node D-->--> Node F (RAL) </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from source to destination, and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the 6LBR to the destination (RAL). </t> <t> The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and address of the target node, it can address the IPv6-in-IPv6 header to that node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to aid compression <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>.target="RFC8138" format="default"/>. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-int2rpl"/>target="NonStoring-int2rpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-int2rpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from Internet toRAL" anchor="NonStoring-int2rpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i | RAL | | | src | | | dst | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Added | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6 | -- | -- | | headers | |RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">Internet src</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 (RH3,RPI) | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Modified | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6 | -- | | headers | | |RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 (RH3,RPI) | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IPv6-in-IPv6 | | headers | | | |RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IPv6-in-IPv6 (RH3,RPI) | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | +-----------+----------+--------------+--------------+--------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RPI)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL toInternet">Internet</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node)-->--> 6LR_1-->--> 6LR_i-->root--> root (6LBR)-->--> Internet dst </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G-->--> Node E-->--> Node B-->--> Node A-->--> Internet </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination, and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LRs) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the source (RUL) to the 6LBR, e.g., 6LR_1 (i=1). </t> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow label is recommended to be zero in the RUL. As the RUL parent adds RPL headers in the RUL packet, the first 6LR (6LR_1) will add an RPI inside a new IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IPv6-in-IPv6 header will be addressed to the root. This case is identical to thestoring-modeStoring mode case (see <xref target="sm-nRal2i"/>).format="default"/>). </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-notrpl2int"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-notrpl2int" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2int"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toInternet" anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2int" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------+ | Header |RUL | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR |Internet| | |src | | [i=2,..,n] | | dst | | |node| | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------+ | Added | -- |IP6-IP6(RPI) | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------+ | Modified| -- | -- | RPI | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6(RPI) | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------+--------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Internet</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_i i=(2,..,n)</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">Internet dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from Internet toRUL">RUL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> Internet src-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_i-->--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Internet-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node E-->--> Node G </t> <t> 6LR_i represents the intermediate routers from the source to the destination, and 1 <= i <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the 6LBR to the RUL. </t> <t> The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 6LBR will know thepath,path and will recognize that the final node is not aRPL capableRPL-capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IPv6-in-IPv6 header destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will set to zero the flow label upon entry in order to aid compression <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>.target="RFC8138" format="default"/>. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-int2notrpl"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-int2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-int2notrpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from Internet toRUL." anchor="NonStoring-int2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +----------+--------+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----+ | Header |Internet| 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LR_n |RUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">Internet src</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_i</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Interaction between Leaves</name> <t> This section describes the communication flow in Non-Storing mode (Non-SM) between the following: </t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li> RAL to RAL </li> <li> RAL to RUL| | | src | | | | dst | +----------+--------+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----+ | Added | -- | IP6-IP6(RH3,RPI) | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +----------+--------+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----+ | Modified | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | | (RH3,RPI) | | | +----------+--------+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | | (RH3,RPI) | | +----------+--------+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----+ |Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +----------+--------+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> </section> <section title="Non-SM: Interaction between leaves"> <t> In this section is described the communication flow in Non Storing Mode (Non-SM) between, </t> <t> <list> <t> RAL to RAL </t> <t> RAL to RUL </t> <t></li> <li> RUL to RAL</t> <t></li> <li> RUL to RUL</t> </list> </t></li> </ul> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RAL toRAL">RAL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL src-->--> 6LR_ia-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_id-->--> RAL dst </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F (RALsrc)-->src) --> Node D-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node E-->--> Node H (RAL dst) </t> <t> 6LR_ia represents the intermediate routers from the source to the root, and 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of routers (6LR) that the packet goesthroughthrough, from the RAL to the root. </t> <t> 6LR_id represents the intermediate routers from the root to the destination, and 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of the intermediate routers (6LR). </t> <t> This case involves only nodes in same RPL domain. The originating node will add an RPI to the originalpacket,packet and send the packetupwards.Upward. </t> <t> The originating node may put the RPI (RPI1) into an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to theroot,root so that the 6LBR can remove that header. If it does not, then the RPI1 is forwarded down from the root in the inner header to no avail. </t> <t> The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it add an IPv6-in-IPv6 header. It removes theRPI(RPI1),RPI (RPI1), as it was contained in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to it. Otherwise, there may be an RPI buried inside the inner IP header, which shouldgetbe ignored. The root inserts an RPI (RPI2) alongside the RH3. </t> <t> Networks that use the RPLP2Ppoint-to-point extension <xref target="RFC6997"/>format="default"/> are essentiallynon-storingNon-Storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or the scenario given in <xreftarget="nsroottoRAL"/>,target="nsroottoRAL" format="default"/>, with the originating node acting as a 6LBR. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2rpl"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-rpl2rpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when encapsulation to the root takes place. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2rplnoIPIP"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-rpl2rplnoIPIP" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when there is no encapsulation to the root. Note that in the Modified headers row, going up in each 6LR_ia only the RPI1 is changed. Going down, in each 6LR_id the IPv6 header is swapped with the RH3 so both are changed alongside with theRPI2.RPI2. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-rpl2rpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RAL to RAL withencapsulationEncapsulation to theroot." anchor="NonStoring-rpl2rpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+-------+----------+------------+----------+------------+ | Header |Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3 -> RAL, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="NonStoring-rpl2rplnoIPIP"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RAL|to RAL without Encapsulation to the Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1 (Ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RAL to RUL</name> <t> In this case, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL --> 6LR_ia| 6LBR |--> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id| RAL | | | src | | | | dst | +---------+-------+----------+------------+----------+------------+ | Added |IP6-IP6| | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers |(RPI1) | -- |(RH3-> RAL, | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | +---------+-------+----------+------------+----------+------------+ | Modified| -- | | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | RPI1 | |(RH3,RPI2)| | +---------+-------+----------+------------+----------+------------+ | Removed | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | | headers | | | (RPI1) | | (RH3, | | | | | | | RPI2) | +---------+-------+----------+------------+----------+------------+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | +---------+-------+----------+------------+----------+------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> <t> <figure title="Non-SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RAL to RAL without encapsulation to the root." anchor="NonStoring-rpl2rplnoIPIP" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | RAL | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+ | Inserted | RPI1 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | | (RH3, | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+ | Modified | -- | RPI1 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | | (RH3, | | | | | | | RPI2) | | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | | headers | | | | | (RH3, | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | | | | | | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | RPI1 | RPI1 | RPI1 | | headers | | | | |(Ignored)| +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> </section> <section title="Non-SM: Example of Flow from RAL to RUL"> <t> In this case the flow comprises: </t> <t> RAL --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> RUL (IPv6--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node F (RAL)-->--> Node D-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node E-->--> Node G (RUL) </t> <t> 6LR_ia represents the intermediate routers from the source to the root, and 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of intermediate routers(6LR)(6LR). </t> <t> 6LR_id represents the intermediate routers from the root to the destination, and 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of the intermediate routers (6LRs). </t> <t> As in the previous case, the RAL (6LN) may insert an RPI (RPI1)headerheader, which must be in an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root so that the 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a new IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the last 6LR_id (6LR_id = m) alongside the insertion of RPI2. </t> <t> If the originating node does not put the RPI (RPI1) into an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to theroot. Then,root, then the RPI1 is forwarded down from the root in the inner header to no avail. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2notrpl"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-rpl2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when encapsulation to the root takes place.The<xreftarget="NonStoring-rpl2notrplnoIPIP"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-rpl2notrplnoIPIP" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case when no encapsulation to the root takes place. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-rpl2notrpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RAL to RUL withencapsulationEncapsulation to theroot." anchor="NonStoring-rpl2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LR_m | RUL | | | src | | | | | dst | | | node | | | | | node | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------+ | Added | IP6-IP6 | | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | (RPI1) | -- | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------+ | Modified | -- | | -- | IP6-IP6 | | -- | | headers | | RPI1 | | (RH3, | -- | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------+ | Removed | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | (RPI1) | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | | +-----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t> <t> <figure title="Non-SM: Summary of the use of headers from RAL to RUL without encapsulation to the root." anchor="NonStoring-rpl2notrplnoIPIP" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Header | RAL | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LR_n | RUL | | | src | | | | | dst | | | node | | | | | node | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Inserted | RPI1 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Modified | -- | RPI1 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Untouched | -- | -- | RPI1 | RPI1 | RPI1 | RPI1 | | headers | | | | | |(Ignored)| +-----------+------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">6LR_m</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="NonStoring-rpl2notrplnoIPIP"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RAL to RUL without Encapsulation to the Root</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RAL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">6LR_n</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">RPI1 (ignored)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL toRAL">RAL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node)-->--> 6LR_1-->--> 6LR_ia-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_id-->--> RAL dst (6LN) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G(RUL)-->(RUL) --> Node E-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node B-->--> Node E-->--> Node H (RAL) </t> <t> 6LR_ia represents the intermediate routers from source to the root, and 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of intermediate routers(6LR)(6LR). </t> <t> 6LR_id represents the intermediate routers from the root to the destination, and 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of the intermediate routers (6LR).</t> <t> In this scenario the RPI (RPI1) is added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add its own IPv6-in-IPv6 header containing an RH3 header and an RPI (RPI2). </t> <t> The <xref target="NonStoring-notrpl2rpl"/> shows the table that summarizes what headers are needed for this use case. </t> <t> <figure title="Non-SM: Summary of the use of headers from RUL to RAL." anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2rpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Header | RUL | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_id | RAL | | | src | | | | | dst | | | node | | | | | node | +----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Added | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | | headers | | (RPI1) | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | +----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Modified | -- | | | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | -- | RPI1 | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | +----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Removed | -- | | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | | headers | | -- | | (RPI1) | | (RH3, | | | | | | | | RPI2) | +----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ |Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |</t> <t> In this scenario, the RPI (RPI1) is added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI and add its own IPv6-in-IPv6 header containing an RH3 header and an RPI (RPI2). </t> <t> <xref target="NonStoring-notrpl2rpl" format="default"/> summarizes which headers| | | | | | | +----------+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ ]]></artwork></figure>are needed for this use case. </t> <table anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2rpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of the Use of Headers from RUL to RAL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">RAL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Non-SM:numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Non-SM: Example of Flow from RUL toRUL">RUL</name> <t> In thiscasecase, the flow comprises: </t> <t> RUL (IPv6 src node)-->--> 6LR_1-->--> 6LR_ia-->--> root (6LBR)-->--> 6LR_id-->--> RUL (IPv6 dst node) </t> <t> For example, a communication flow could be: Node G-->--> Node E-->--> Node B-->--> Node A (root)-->--> Node C-->--> Node J </t> <t> 6LR_ia represents the intermediate routers from the source to the root, and 1 <= ia <= n, where n is the total number of intermediate routers(6LR)(6LR). </t> <t> 6LR_id represents the intermediate routers from the root to the destination, and 1 <= id <= m, where m is the total number of the intermediate routers (6LR). </t> <t> This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases. </t> <t>The<xreftarget="NonStoring-notrpl2notrpl"/> shows the table thattarget="NonStoring-notrpl2notrpl" format="default"/> summarizeswhatwhich headers are needed for this use case. </t><t> <figure title="Non-SM:<table anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2notrpl"> <name>Non-SM: Summary of theuseUse ofheadersHeaders from RUL toRUL" anchor="NonStoring-notrpl2notrpl" align="center"> <artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+------+-------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------+ | Header | RUL | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia| 6LBR |6LR_id | 6LR_m | RUL | | | src | | | | | | dst | | | node | | | | | | node | +---------+------+-------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------+ | Added | -- |IP6-IP6| -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | (RPI1)| | (RH3, | | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | | | +---------+------+-------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------+ | Modified| -- | -- | | -- |IP6-IP6| -- | -- | | headers | | | RPI1 | |RUL</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Header</th> <th align="center">RUL src</th> <th align="center">6LR_1</th> <th align="center">6LR_ia</th> <th align="center">6LBR</th> <th align="center">6LR_id</th> <th align="center">6LR_m</th> <th align="center">RUL dst</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th align="center">Added headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3,| | | | | | | | | RPI2)| | | +---------+------+-------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------+ | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | IP6-IP6 | -- | | headers | | | | (RPI1) | |RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Modified headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">RPI1</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3,| | | | | | | | | RPI2) | | +---------+------+-------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------+ |Untouched| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | headers | | | | | | | | +---------+------+-------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Removed headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RPI1)</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">IP6-IP6 (RH3, RPI2)</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">Untouched headers</th> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> <td align="center">--</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Operationalanchor="notrplaware" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Operational Considerations ofsupporting RUL-leaves" anchor="notrplaware">Supporting RULs</name> <t> Roughly half of the situations described in this document involve leaf ("host") nodes that do not speak RPL. These nodes fall into two further categories: ones that drop a packet that have RPI or RH3 headers, and ones that continue to process a packet that has RPI and/or RH3 headers. </t> <t> <xref target="RFC8200"/>format="default"/> provides for new rules that suggest that nodes that have not been configured (explicitly) to examine Hop-by-Hopheaders,Options headers should ignore thoseheaders,headers and continue processing the packet. Despite this, and despite the switch from 0x63 to 0x23, there may be nodes thatare pre-RFC8200,predate RFC 8200 or are simply intolerant. Those nodes will drop packets that continue to have RPL artifacts in them. In general, such nodescan notcannot be easily supported in RPL LLNs. </t> <t> There are some specific cases where it is possible to remove the RPL artifacts prior to forwarding the packet to the leaf host. The critical thing is that the artifacts have been inserted by the RPL root inside an IPv6-in-IPv6 header, and that the header has been addressed to the 6LR immediately prior to the leaf node. In that case, in the process of removing the IPv6-in-IPv6 header, the artifacts can also be removed. </t> <t> The above case occurs whenever traffic originates from the outside the LLN (the "Internet" cases above), andnon-storingNon-Storing mode is used. Innon-storingNon-Storing mode, the RPL root knows the exact topology (as it must create the RH3 header) and therefore knows which 6LR is prior to the leaf. For example, in <xreftarget="fig_CommonTopology"/>,target="fig_CommonTopology" format="default"/>, Node E is the 6LR prior to leaf Node G, or Node C is the 6LR prior to leaf Node J. </t> <t> Traffic originating from the RPL root (such as when the data collection system is co-located on the RPL root), does not require an IPv6-in-IPv6 header (instoringStoring ornon-storingNon-Storing mode), as the packet is originating at the root, and the root can insert the RPI and RH3 headers directly into thepacket,packet as it is formed. Such a packet is slightly smaller, butonlycan only be sent to nodes (whether RPL aware ornot),not) that will tolerate the RPL artifacts. </t> <t> An operator that finds itself with a high amount of traffic from the RPL root toRPL-not-aware-leaves,RPL-unaware leaves will have to do IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation if the leaf is not tolerant of the RPL artifacts. Such an operator could otherwise omit this unnecessary header if it was certain of the properties of the leaf. </t> <t> Asstoringthe Storing modecan notcannot know the final path of the traffic, intolerant(thatleaf nodes, which drop packets with RPLartifacts) leaf nodes can notartifacts, cannot be supported. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Operational considerationsanchor="sec_op_con_0x23" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Operational Considerations ofintroducing 0x23">Introducing 0x23</name> <t> This section describes the operational considerations of introducing the new RPI Option Type of 0x23. </t> <t> Duringbootstrappingbootstrapping, the nodegetsreceives the DIO with the information of RPI Option Type, indicating the new RPI in the DODAG Configuration optionFlag.flag. The DODAG root is in chargeto configureof configuring the current networktowith the new value, through DIOmessagesmessages, and determining when all the nodesarehave been set with the new value. The DODAG should change to a new DODAG version. In case of rebooting, the node does not remember the RPI Option Type. Thus, the DIO is sent with a flag indicating the new RPI Option Type. </t> <t> The DODAG Configuration option is contained in a RPL DIO message, which contains a uniqueDTSNDestination Advertisement Trigger Sequence Number (DTSN) counter. The leaf nodes respond to this message with DAO messages containing the same DTSN. This is a normal part of RPL routing; the RPL root therefore knows when the updated DODAG Configuration option has been seen by all nodes. </t> <t> Before the migration happens, all the RPL-aware nodes should support bothvalues .values. The migration procedure is triggered when the DIO is sent with the flag indicating the new RPI Option Type. Namely, it remains at 0x63 until it is sure that the network is capable of 0x23, then it abruptly changes to 0x23. The 0x23 RPI Option allowsto sendthe sending of packets tonot-RPLnon-RPL nodes. Thenot-RPLnon-RPL nodes should ignore the option and continue processing the packets. </t> <t> As mentioned previously, indicating the new RPI in the DODAG Configuration option flag is a way to avoid the flag day (abrupt changeover) in a network using 0x63 as the RPI Option Type value. It is suggested that RPL implementations accept both 0x63 and 0x23 RPI OptiontypeType values when processing the header to enable interoperability. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="IANA Considerations" anchor="iana">anchor="iana" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <sectiontitle="Optionnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Option Type in RPLOption">Option</name> <t> This document updates the registration made in<xref target="RFC6553"/> Destinationthe "Destination Options and Hop-by-HopOptions registryOptions" subregistry <xref target="RFC6553" format="default"/> from 0x63 to 0x23 as shown in <xreftarget="fig_IanaRPIOption"/>.target="fig_IanaRPIOption" format="default"/>. </t><t> <figure title="Option<table anchor="fig_IanaRPIOption"> <name>Option Type in RPLOption.(*)represents this document" anchor="fig_IanaRPIOption" align="center"> <artwork> <![CDATA[ +-------+-------------------+------------------------+---------- -+ | Hex | Binary Value | Description | Reference | + Value +-------------------+ + + | | act | chg | rest | | | +-------+-----+-----+-------+------------------------+------------+ | 0x23 | 00 | 1 | 00011 | RPLOption</name> <thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Hex Value</th> <th rowspan="1" colspan="3" align="center">Binary Value</th> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Description</th> <th rowspan="2" colspan="1" align="center">Reference</th> </tr> <tr> <th align="center">act</th> <th align="center">chg</th> <th align="center">rest</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">0x23</td> <td align="center">00</td> <td align="center">1</td> <td align="center">00011</td> <td align="center">RPL Option</td> <td align="center">This document</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">0x63</td> <td align="center">01</td> <td align="center">1</td> <td align="center">00011</td> <td align="center">RPL Option|[RFCXXXX](*)| +-------+-----+-----+-------+------------------------+------------+ | 0x63 | 01 | 1 | 00011 | RPL Option(DEPRECATED) | [RFC6553] | | | | | | |[RFCXXXX](*)| +-------+-----+-----+-------+------------------------+------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>(DEPRECATED)</td> <td align="center"><xref target="RFC6553" format="default"/>, this document</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t>DODAGThe "DODAG ConfigurationoptionOption Flags for MOP 0..6" subregistry is updated as follows (<xreftarget="fig_RPIflagdayConfOption"/>):target="fig_RPIflagdayConfOption" format="default"/>): </t><t> <figure title="DODAG<table anchor="fig_RPIflagdayConfOption"> <name>DODAG ConfigurationoptionOption Flag toindicateIndicate theRPI-flag-day." anchor="fig_RPIflagdayConfOption" align="center"> <artwork> <![CDATA[ +------------+-----------------+---------------+ | Bit number | Description | Reference | +------------+-----------------+---------------+ | 3 |RPI Flag Day</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Bit Number</th> <th align="center">Capability Description</th> <th align="center">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">3</td> <td align="center">RPI 0x23enable | This document | +------------+-----------------+---------------+ ]]></artwork></figure> </t>enable</td> <td align="center">This document</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <sectiontitle="Changeanchor="sec_op_flags_reg" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Change to theDODAG"DODAG ConfigurationOptions Flags registry">Option Flags" Subregistry</name> <t>This document requestsIANAto changehas changed the name of the "DODAG Configuration Option Flags"registrysubregistry to "DODAG Configuration Option Flags for MOP 0..6". </t><t>This<t>The subregistry references this documentrequests to be mentioned as a referencefor this change.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Changeanchor="sec_mop_val_change" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Change MOPvalueValue 7 toReserved">Reserved</name> <t>This document requests the changingIANA has changed the registration status of value 7 in theMode"Mode ofOperation registryOperation" subregistry from Unassigned to Reserved. This change is in support of future work. </t> <t> This documentrequests to be mentionedis listed as a reference for this entry in theregistry.subregistry. </t> </section> </section> <section anchor="Security"title="Security Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t> The security considerations covered in <xreftarget="RFC6553"/>target="RFC6553" format="default"/> and <xreftarget="RFC6554"/>target="RFC6554" format="default"/> apply when the packets are in the RPL Domain. </t> <t> The IPv6-in-IPv6 mechanism described in this document is much more limited than the general mechanism described in <xreftarget="RFC2473"/>.target="RFC2473" format="default"/>. The willingness of each node in the LLN to decapsulate packets and forward them could be exploited by nodes to disguise the origin of an attack. </t> <t> While a typical LLN may be a very poor origin for attack traffic (as the networks tend to be very slow, and the nodes often have very low duty cycles), given enough nodes, LLNs could still have a significant impact, particularly if the attack is targeting another LLN. Additionally, some uses of RPL involvelarge backbone ISP scalelarge-backbone, ISP-scale equipment <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane"/>,target="I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane" format="default"/>, which may be equipped with multiple100Gb/s100 Gb/s interfaces. </t> <t> Blocking or careful filtering of IPv6-in-IPv6 traffic entering the LLN as described above will make sure that any attack that is mounted must originate from compromised nodes within the LLN. The use ofBCP38 <xref target="BCP38"/>network ingress filtering <xref target="BCP38" format="default"/> on egress traffic at the RPL rooton egress trafficwillbothalert the operator to the existence of theattack,attack as well as drop the attack traffic. As the RPL network is typically numbered from a single prefix, which is itself assigned by RPL,BCP38network ingress filtering <xref target="BCP38" format="default"/> involves a single prefix comparison and should be trivial to automatically configure. </t> <t> There are some scenarios where IPv6-in-IPv6 traffic should be allowed to pass through the RPL root, such as the IPv6-in-IPv6 mediated communications between a newPledgepledge and the Join Registrar/Coordinator (JRC) when using <xref target="I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra"/>format="default"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join"/>.format="default"/>. This is the case for the RPL root to do careful filtering: it occurs only when the Join Coordinator is not co-located inside the RPL root. </t> <t> With the above precautions, an attack using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunnels can only be by a node within the LLN on another node within the LLN. Such an attack could, of course, be done directly. An attack of this kind is meaningful only if the source addresses are either fake or if the point is to amplify return traffic. Such anattack,attack could also be done without the use of IPv6-in-IPv6headersheaders, by using forged sourceaddresses.addresses instead. If the attack requiresbi-directionalbidirectional communication, then IPv6-in-IPv6 provides no advantages. </t> <t> Whenever IPv6-in-IPv6 headers are being proposed, there is a concern about creating security issues. In the Security Considerations section of <xreftarget="RFC2473"/>,target="RFC2473" format="default"/> (Section <xref target="RFC2473" section="9" sectionFormat="bare" format="default"/>), it was suggested that tunnel entry and exit points can be secured by securing the IPv6 path between them. This recommendation is not practical for RPL networks. <xref target="RFC5406"/> goes into some detailformat="default"/> provides guidance on what on what additional detailswould beare needed in order to "Use IPsec".UseWhile the use ofESPEncapsulating Security Payload (ESP) would prevent source address forgeries, in order to use it with <xreftarget="RFC8138"/>target="RFC8138" format="default"/>, compression(compression mustwould have to occur beforeencryption), andencryption, as the <xreftarget="RFC8138"/> compression is lossy in a way that prevents use of AH.target="RFC8138" format="default"/> compression is lossy. Once encrypted, there would be no further redundancy to compress. These are minor issues. The major issue is how to establish trust enough such thatIKEv2Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) could be used. This would require a system of certificates to be present in every single node, including any Internet nodes that might need to communicate with the LLN. Thus, using IPsec requires a global PKI in the general case. </t> <t> More significantly, the use of IPsec tunnels to protect the IPv6-in-IPv6 headerswouldwould, in the generalcasecase, scale with the square of the number of nodes. This is a lot ofresourceresources for a constrained nodes on a constrained network. In the end, the IPsec tunnels would be providing only BCP38-like origin authentication! That is, IPsec provides a transitive guarantee to the tunnel exit point that the tunnel entry point didBCP38network ingress filtering <xref target="BCP38" format="default"/> on traffic going in. Just doing origin filtering per BCP 38 at the entry and exit of the LLN provides a similar level of security without all the scaling and trust problems related to IPv6 tunnels as discussed inRFC 2473.<xref target="RFC2473" format="default"/>. IPsec is not recommended. </t> <t> An LLN with hostile nodes within it would not be protected against impersonationwithwithin the LLN by entry/exit filtering. </t> <t> The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways. An external attacker may form a packet with an RH3 that is not fully consumed and encapsulate it to hide the RH3 from intermediate nodes and disguise the origin of traffic. As such, the attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it reaches the destination, which will decapsulate it. As indicated insection 4.2 of<xreftarget="RFC6554"/>,target="RFC6554" section="4.2" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/>, RPL routers are responsible for ensuring that an SRH is only used between RPL routers. As such, if there is an RH3 that is not fully consumed in the encapsulated packet, the node that decapsulates itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ensure that the outer packet was originated in the RPL domain and drop the packet otherwise. </t> <t> Also, as indicated bysection 2 of<xreftarget="RFC6554"/>,target="RFC6554" section="2" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/>, RPL Border Routers "do not allow datagrams carrying an SRH header to enter or exit a RPL routingdomain".domain." This sentence must be understood as concerning non-fully-consumed packets. A consumed (inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows from one LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN.As perPer the discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be removed. However, there is no case described in this document where an RH3 is inserted in anon-storingNon-Storing network on traffic that is leaving the LLN, but this document should not preclude such a future innovation. </t> <t> In short, a packet that crosses the border of the RPL domainMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> carryandan RH3, and if so, that RH3MUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be fully consumed. </t> <t> The RPI, if permitted to enter the LLN, could be used by an attacker to change the priority of a packet by selecting a different RPLInstanceID, perhaps one with a higher energy cost, for instance. It could also be that not all nodes are reachable in an LLN using the default RPLInstanceID, but a change of RPLInstanceID would permit an attacker to bypass such filtering. Like the RH3, an RPI is to be inserted by the RPL root on traffic entering the LLN by first inserting an IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The attacker's RPI therefore will not be seen by the network. Upon reaching the destinationnodenode, the RPI has no further meaning and is just skipped; the presence of a second RPI will have no meaning to the end node as the packet has already been identified as being atit'sits final destination. </t> <t> For traffic leaving a RUL, if the RUL adds anopaqueuninitialized RPI (e.g., with a value of zero), then the 6LR as a RPLborder router SHOULDBorder Router <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> rewrite the RPI to indicate the selected Instance and set the flags. This is done in order toavoid:avoid the following scenarios: 1) The leaf is an external router that passes a packet that it did not generate and that carries an unrelatedRPIRPI, and 2) The leaf is an attacker or presents misconfiguration and tries to inject traffic in a protectedinstance.Instance. Also, this appliesinto the case where the leaf is aware of the RPLinstanceInstance and passes a correct RPI; the 6LR needs a configuration that allows that leaf to inject in that instance. </t> <t> The RH3 and RPIs could be abused by an attacker inside of the network to route packetson non-obviousin nonobvious ways, perhaps eluding observation. This usage appears consistent with a normal operation of <xref target="RFC6997"/>format="default"/> andcan notcannot be restricted at all. This is a feature, not a bug. </t> <t> <xreftarget="RFC7416"/>target="RFC7416" format="default"/> deals with many other threats to LLNs not directly related to the use of IPv6-in-IPv6 headers, and this document does not change that analysis. </t> <t> Nodes within the LLN can use the IPv6-in-IPv6 mechanism to mount an attack on another part of the LLN, while disguising the origin of the attack. The mechanism can even be abused to make it appear that the attack is coming from outside the LLN, and unless countered, this could be used to mount aDistributed Denial Of ServiceDDOS attack upon nodes elsewhere in the Internet. See <xref target="DDOS-KREBS"/>format="default"/> for an example of such attacks already seen in the real world. </t> <t> If an attack comes from inside of LLN, it can be alleviated with SAVI (Source Address Validation Improvement) using <xreftarget="RFC8505"/>target="RFC8505" format="default"/> with <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd"/>.target="RFC8928" format="default"/>. The attacker will not be able to source traffic with an address that is not registered, and the registration process checks for topological correctness. Notice that there isan L2Layer 2 authentication in most of the cases. If an attack comes from outsideLLN IPv6-in- IPv6LLN, IPv6-in-IPv6 can be used to hide inner routing headers, but by construction, the RH3 can typically only address nodes within the LLN. That is, an RH3 with a CmprI less than 8,should be considered an attack (seeRFC6554, section 3).<xref target="RFC6554" section="3" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/>). </t> <t> Nodes outside of the LLN will need to pass IPv6-in-IPv6 traffic through the RPL root to perform this attack. To counter, the RPL rootSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> either restrict ingress of IPv6-in-IPv6 packets (the simpler solution), or itSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> walk the IP header extension chain until it can inspect theupper-layer-payloadupper-layer payload as described in <xref target="RFC7045"/>.format="default"/>. In particular, the RPL rootSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> do network ingress filtering <xref target="BCP38"/> processingformat="default"/> on the source addresses of all IP headers that it examines in both directions. </t> <t> Note: there are some situations where a prefix will spread across multiple LLNs via mechanisms such as the one described in <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router" />.target="RFC8929" format="default"/>. In thiscasecase, theBCP38network ingress filtering <xref target="BCP38" format="default"/> needs to take this into account, either by exchanging detailed routing information on eachLLN,LLN or by moving theBCP38network ingress filtering <xref target="BCP38" format="default"/> further towards the Internet, so that the details of the multiple LLNs do not matter. </t> </section> </middle> <back> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels" to="TUNNELS"/> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join" to="ZEROTOUCH-JOIN"/> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra" to="BRSKI"/> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane" to="ACP"/> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6553.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6554.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6040.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8200.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8025.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8138.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6282.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6550.xml"/> <referencegroup anchor="BCP38" target="https://rfc-editor.org/info/bcp38"> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2827.xml"/> </referencegroup> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7045.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0801.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8504.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd] Published as RFC 8928 --> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8928.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] IESG state Expired --> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] companion document RFC 9010 --> <reference anchor="RFC9010"> <front> <title>Routing for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) Leaves</title> <author initials="P" surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert" role="editor"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="M" surname="Richardson" fullname="Michael Richardson"> <organization/> </author> <date month="March" year="2021"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9010"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9010"/> </reference> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6775.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6437.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7416.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7102.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8180.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2473.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8505.xml"/> <!-- RFC2460 obsoleted by RFC8200, mentioned for historical background --> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2460.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] in REF state as of 02 Feb 21 --> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5406.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] in EDIT state as of 02 Feb 21 --> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join] IESG state Expired --> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] Published as RFC 8929 --> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8929.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6997.xml"/> <!-- [DDOS-KREBS] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k- cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/ redirects to https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/--> <reference anchor="DDOS-KREBS" target="https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/"> <front> <title>Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by >145k hacked cameras</title> <author initials="D." surname="Goodin"> <organization/> </author> <date year="2016" month="September"/> </front> </reference> </references> </references> <section anchor="Acknowledgments"title="Acknowledgments">numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgments</name> <t> This work is done thanks to the grant given by the StandICT.eu project. </t> <t> A special BIG thanks toC.<contact fullname="C. M.HeardHeard"/> for the help withthe<xref target="updateRFCs_section"/>.format="default"/>. Much of theredactionediting in that section is based on his comments. </t> <t> Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and comments of(alphabeticalthe following (in alphabetical order):Dominique Barthel, Robert Cragie, Simon Duquennoy, Ralph Droms, Cenk Gündogan, Rahul Jadhav, Benjamin Kaduk, Matthias Kovatsch, Gustavo Mercado, Subramanian Moonesamy, Marcela Orbiscay, Charlie Perkins, Cristian Perez, Alvaro Retana, Peter<contact fullname="Dominique Barthel"/>, <contact fullname="Robert Cragie"/>, <contact fullname="Ralph Droms"/>, <contact fullname="Simon Duquennoy"/>, <contact fullname="Cenk Guendogan"/>, <contact fullname="Rahul Jadhav"/>, <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/>, <contact fullname="Matthias Kovatsch"/>, <contact fullname="Gustavo Mercado"/>, <contact fullname="Subramanian Moonesamy"/>, <contact fullname="Marcela Orbiscay"/>, <contact fullname="Cristian Perez"/>, <contact fullname="Charlie Perkins"/>, <contact fullname="Alvaro Retana"/>, <contact fullname="Peter van derStok, Xavier Vilajosana, Éric Vyncke and Thomas Watteyne.Stok"/>, <contact fullname="Xavier Vilajosana"/>, <contact fullname="Éric Vyncke"/>, and <contact fullname="Thomas Watteyne"/>. </t> </section></middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> &RFC6553; &RFC6554; &RFC2119; &RFC6040; <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8200.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8025.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8138.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6282.xml" ?> &RFC6550; <reference anchor='BCP38' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp38'> <front> <title>Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing</title> <author initials='P.' surname='Ferguson' fullname='P. Ferguson'><organization /></author> <author initials='D.' surname='Senie' fullname='D. Senie'><organization /></author> <date year='2000' month='May' /> <abstract><t>This paper discusses a simple, effective, and straightforward method for using ingress traffic filtering to prohibit DoS (Denial of Service) attacks which use forged IP addresses to be propagated from 'behind' an Internet Service Provider's (ISP) aggregation point. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract> </front> <seriesInfo name='BCP' value='38'/> <seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2827'/> <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2827'/> </reference> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7045.xml" ?> </references> <references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.0801.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8504.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-ap-nd.xml"?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels.xml"?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves.xml" ?> &RFC6775; &RFC6437; &RFC7416; &RFC4443; &RFC7102; &RFC8180; &RFC2473; &RFC8505; &RFC2460; <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5406.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-zerotouch-join.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router.xml" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6997.xml" ?> <reference anchor="DDOS-KREBS" target="http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/"> <front> <title>Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by >145k hacked cameras</title> <author initials="D." surname="Goodin"> <organization></organization> </author> <date year="2016" month="September"/> </front> </reference> </references></back> </rfc>