Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R.A. Jadhav, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9009 Huawei
Category: Standards Track P. Thubert
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
R.N. Sahoo
Z. Cao
Huawei
March
April 2021
Efficient Route Invalidation
Abstract
This document explains the problems associated with the current use of No-Path No-
Path Destination Advertisement Object (NPDAO) messaging in RFC 6550
and also discusses the requirements for an optimized route
invalidation messaging scheme. Further, this document specifies a
new proactive route invalidation message called the "Destination
Cleanup Object" (DCO), which fulfills requirements for optimized
route invalidation messaging.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology
1.2. Current RPL NPDAO Messaging
1.3. Why Is NPDAO Messaging Important?
2. Problems with Current the RPL NPDAO Messaging
2.1. Lost NPDAO Due to Link Break to the Previous Parent
2.2. Invalidating Routes of Dependent Nodes
2.3. Possible Route Downtime Caused by Asynchronous Operation of
the NPDAO and DAO
3. Requirements for NPDAO Optimization
3.1. Req. #1: Remove Messaging Dependency on the Link to the
Previous Parent
3.2. Req. #2: Route Invalidation for Dependent Nodes at the
Parent Switching Node
3.3. Req. #3: Route Invalidation Should Not Impact Data Traffic
4. Changes to RPL Signaling
4.1. Change in RPL Route Invalidation Semantics
4.2. Transit Information Option Changes
4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)
4.3.1. Secure DCO
4.3.2. DCO Options
4.3.3. Path Sequence Number in the DCO
4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgment (DCO-ACK)
4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK
4.4. DCO Base Rules
4.5. Unsolicited DCO
4.6. Other Considerations
4.6.1. Invalidation of Dependent Nodes
4.6.2. NPDAO and DCO in the Same Network
4.6.3. Considerations for DCO Retries
4.6.4. DCO with Multiple Preferred Parents
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) Flags
5.2. New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object
Acknowledgment (DCO-ACK) Status Field
5.3. New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)
Acknowledgment Flags
5.3. RPL Rejection Status Values
6. Security Considerations
7. Normative References
Appendix A. Example Messaging
A.1. Example DCO Messaging
A.2. Example DCO Messaging with Multiple Preferred Parents
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
RPL (the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) as
defined in [RFC6550] specifies a proactive distance-vector-based
routing scheme. RPL has optional messaging in the form of DAO
(Destination Advertisement Object) messages, which the 6LBR (6LoWPAN
Border Router) and 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) can use to learn a route
towards the downstream nodes. ("6LoWPAN" stands for "IPv6 over Low-
Power Wireless Personal Area Network".) In Storing mode, DAO
messages would result in routing entries being created on all
intermediate 6LRs from a node's parent all the way towards the 6LBR.
RPL allows the use of No-Path DAO (NPDAO) messaging to invalidate a
routing path corresponding to the given target, thus releasing
resources utilized on that path. An NPDAO is a DAO message with a
route lifetime of zero. It originates at the target node and always
flows upstream towards the 6LBR. This document explains the problems
associated with the current use of NPDAO messaging in [RFC6550] and also
discusses the requirements for an optimized route invalidation
messaging scheme. Further, this document specifies a new proactive
route invalidation message called the "Destination Cleanup Object"
(DCO), which fulfills requirements for optimized route invalidation
messaging.
This document only caters to RPL's Storing Mode of Operation (MOP).
The Non-Storing MOP does not require the use of an NPDAO for route
invalidation, since routing entries are not maintained on 6LRs.
1.1. Requirements Language and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms
and concepts that are discussed in "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6550].
Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN):
A network in which both the routers and their interconnects are
constrained. LLN routers typically operate with constraints on
processing power, memory, and energy (battery power). Their
interconnects are characterized by high loss rates, low data
rates, and instability.
6LoWPAN Router (6LR):
An intermediate router that is able to send and receive Router
Advertisements (RAs) and Router Solicitations (RSs) as well as
forward and route IPv6 packets.
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG):
A directed graph having the property that all edges are oriented
in such a way that no cycles exist.
Destination-Oriented DAG (DODAG):
A DAG rooted at a single destination, i.e., at a single DAG root
with no outgoing edges.
6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR):
A border router that is a DODAG root and is the edge node for
traffic flowing in and out of the 6LoWPAN.
Destination Advertisement Object (DAO):
DAO messaging allows downstream routes to the nodes to be
established.
DODAG Information Object (DIO):
DIO messaging allows upstream routes to the 6LBR to be
established. DIO messaging is initiated at the DAO root.
Common ancestor node:
A 6LR/6LBR node that is the first common node between two paths of
a target node.
No-Path DAO (NPDAO):
A DAO message that has a target with a lifetime of 0. Used for
the purpose of route invalidation.
Destination Cleanup Object (DCO):
A new RPL control message code defined by this document. DCO
messaging improves proactive route invalidation in RPL.
Regular DAO:
A DAO message with a non-zero lifetime. Routing adjacencies are
created or updated based on this message.
Target node:
The node switching its parent whose routing adjacencies are
updated (created/removed).
1.2. Current RPL NPDAO Messaging
RPL uses NPDAO messaging in Storing mode so that the node changing
its routing adjacencies can invalidate the previous route. This is
needed so that nodes along the previous path can release any
resources (such as the routing entry) they maintain on behalf of the
target node.
Throughout this document, we will refer to the topology shown in
Figure 1:
(6LBR)
|
|
|
(A)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(G) (H)
| |
| |
| |
(B) (C)
\ ;
\ ;
\ ;
(D)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(E) (F)
Figure 1: Sample Topology
Node (D) D is connected via preferred parent (B). (D) B. D has an alternate path
via (C) C towards the 6LBR. Node (A) A is the common ancestor for
(D) D for
paths through (B)-(G) B-G and (C)-(H). C-H. When (D) D switches from
(B) B to (C), C, RPL allows
sending an NPDAO to (B) B and a regular DAO to
(C). C.
1.3. Why Is NPDAO Messaging Important?
Nodes
Resources in LLNs may be resource LLN nodes are typically constrained. There is limited
memory available, and routing entry records are one of the primary
elements occupying dynamic memory in the nodes. Route invalidation
helps 6LR nodes to decide which routing entries could can be discarded to for
better optimize
resource utilization. use of the limited resources. Thus, it becomes necessary to
have an efficient route invalidation mechanism. Also note that a
single parent switch may result in a "subtree" switching from one
parent to another. Thus, the route invalidation needs to be done on
behalf of the subtree and not the switching node alone. In the above
example, when Node (D) D switches its parent, route updates need to be
done for the routing table entries of (C), (H), (A), (G), C, H, A, G, and (B) B with
destinations (D), (E), D, E, and (F). F. Without efficient route invalidation, a
6LR may have to hold a lot of stale route entries.
2. Problems with Current the RPL NPDAO Messaging
2.1. Lost NPDAO Due to Link Break to the Previous Parent
When a node switches its parent, the NPDAO is to be sent to its
previous parent and a regular DAO to its new parent. In cases where
the node switches its parent because of transient or permanent parent
link/node failure, the NPDAO message is bound to fail. may not be received by the
parent.
2.2. Invalidating Routes of Dependent Nodes
RPL does not specify how route invalidation will work for dependent
nodes rooted at in the switching node, node subDAG, resulting in stale routing
entries of the dependent nodes. The only way for a 6LR to invalidate
the route entries for dependent nodes would be to use route lifetime
expiry, which could be substantially high for LLNs.
In the example topology, when Node (D) D switches its parent, Node (D) D
generates an NPDAO on its own behalf. There is no NPDAO generated by
the dependent child nodes (E) Nodes E and (F), F, through the previous path via (D) D to (B)
B and (G), G, resulting in stale entries on nodes (B) Nodes B and (G) G for
nodes (E) Nodes E and (F).
F.
2.3. Possible Route Downtime Caused by Asynchronous Operation of the
NPDAO and DAO
A switching node may generate both an NPDAO and a DAO via two
different paths at almost the same time. It is possible that the
NPDAO may invalidate the previous route and the regular DAO sent via
the new path gets lost on the way. This may result in route
downtime, impacting downward traffic for the switching node.
In the example topology, let's say that Node (D) D switches from parent
(B) B to (C). C.
An NPDAO sent via the previous route may invalidate the previous
route, whereas there is no way to determine whether the new DAO has
successfully updated the route entries on the new path.
3. Requirements for NPDAO Optimization
3.1. Req. #1: Remove Messaging Dependency on the Link to the Previous
Parent
When the switching node sends the NPDAO message to the previous
parent, it is normal that the link to the previous parent is prone to
failure (that's why the node decided to switch). Therefore, it is
required that the route invalidation does not depend on the previous
link, which is prone to failure. The previous link referred to here
represents the link between the node and its previous parent (from
which the node is now disassociating).
3.2. Req. #2: Route Invalidation for Dependent Nodes at the Parent
Switching Node
It should be possible to do route invalidation for dependent nodes
rooted at the switching node.
3.3. Req. #3: Route Invalidation Should Not Impact Data Traffic
While sending the NPDAO and DAO messages, it is possible that the
NPDAO successfully invalidates the previous path, while the newly
sent DAO gets lost (new path not set up successfully). This will
result in downstream unreachability to the node switching paths.
Therefore, it is desirable that the route invalidation is
synchronized with the DAO to avoid the risk of route downtime.
4. Changes to RPL Signaling
4.1. Change in RPL Route Invalidation Semantics
As described in Section 1.2, the NPDAO originates at the node
changing to a new parent and traverses upstream towards the root. In
order to solve the problems discussed in Section 2, this document
adds a new proactive route invalidation message called the
"Destination Cleanup Object" (DCO), which originates at a common
ancestor node and flows downstream between the new and old path. The common ancestor
node generates a DCO in response to the change in the when removing a next hop on to a target -- for
instance, as a delayed response to receiving a regular DAO from
another child node with an updated a Path Sequence for the target. target that is the
same or newer, in which case the DCO transmission is canceled.
The 6LRs in the path for the DCO take such action as route
invalidation based on the DCO information and subsequently send
another DCO with the same information downstream to the next hop. hop(s).
This operation is similar to how the DAOs are handled on intermediate
6LRs in the Storing MOP [RFC6550]. Just like the DAO in the Storing
MOP, the DCO is sent using link-local unicast source and destination
IPv6 addresses. Unlike the DAO, which always travels upstream, the
DCO always travels downstream.
In Figure 1, when node child Node D decides to switch the path from parent
B to parent C, it sends a regular DAO to node Node C with reachability
information containing the address of D as the target and an
incremented Path Sequence. Node C will update the routing table
based on the reachability information in the DAO and will in turn
generate another DAO with the same reachability information and
forward it to H. Node H also recursively follows the same procedure as
Node C and forwards it to node Node A. When node Node A receives the regular
DAO, it finds that it already has a routing table entry on behalf of
the Target Address of node Node D. It finds, however, that the next-hop
information for reaching node Node D has changed, i.e., node Node D has decided
to change the paths. In this case, Node A, which is the common
ancestor node for node Node D along the two paths (previous and new), should can
generate a DCO that traverses the network downwards in over the old path
to the network. target. Node A handles normal DAO forwarding to the 6LBR as
required by [RFC6550].
4.2. Transit Information Option Changes
Every RPL message is divided into base message fields and additional
options, as described in Section 6 of [RFC6550]. The base fields
apply to the message as a whole, and options are appended to add
message-specific / use-case-specific attributes. As an example, a
DAO message may be attributed by one or more "RPL Target" options
that specify that the reachability information is for the given
targets. Similarly, a Transit Information option may be associated
with a set of RPL Target options.
This document specifies a change in the Transit Information option to
contain the "Invalidate previous route" (I) flag. This 'I' flag
signals the common ancestor node to generate a DCO on behalf of the
target node with a RPL Status of 195, indicating that the address has
moved. The 'I' flag is carried in the Transit Information option,
which augments the reachability information for a given set of one or
more RPL Targets. A Transit Information option with the 'I' flag set
should be carried in the DAO message when route invalidation is
sought for the corresponding target or targets.
Value 195 represents the 'E' 'U' and 'A' bits in RPL Status, to be set as
per Figure 6 of [RFC9010], with the lower 6 bits with set to the 6LoWPAN
Neighbor Discovery (ND) Extended Address Registration Option (EARO)
Status value of 3 indicating 'Moved' as per Table 1 of [RFC8505].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x06 | Option Length |E|I| Flags | Path Control |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Sequence | Path Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Updated Transit Information Option (New 'I' Flag Added)
I (Invalidate previous route) flag: The 'I' flag is set by the
target node to indicate to the common ancestor node that it wishes
to invalidate any previous route between the two paths.
[RFC6550] allows the parent address to be sent in the Transit
Information option, depending on the MOP. In the case of the Storing
MOP, the field is usually not needed. In the case of a DCO, the
Parent Address field MUST NOT be included.
The
Upon receiving a DAO message with a Transit Information option that
has the 'I' flag set, and as a delayed response removing a routing
adjacency to the target indicated in the Transit Information option,
the common ancestor node SHOULD generate a DCO message in response to
this 'I' flag when it sees that the routing adjacencies have changed
for the target. next
hop associated to that adjacency. The 'I' flag is intended to give
the target node control over its own route invalidation, serving as a
signal to request DCO generation.
4.3. Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)
A new ICMPv6 RPL control message code is defined by this
specification and is referred to as the "Destination Cleanup Object"
(DCO), which is used for proactive cleanup of state and routing
information held on behalf of the target node by 6LRs. The DCO
message always traverses downstream and cleans up route information
and other state information associated with the given target. The
format of the DCO message is shown in Figure 3.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |K|D| Flags | RPL Status | DCOSequence |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID (optional) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option(s)...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DCO Base Object
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.
K: The 'K' flag indicates that the recipient of a DCO message is
expected to send a DCO-ACK back. If the DCO-ACK is not received
even after setting the 'K' flag, an implementation may retry the
DCO at a later time. The number of retries is implementation and
deployment dependent and is expected to be kept similar to the
number of DAO retries [RFC6550]. Section 4.6.3 specifies the
considerations for DCO retries. A node receiving a DCO message
without the 'K' flag set MAY respond with a DCO-ACK, especially to
report an error condition. An example error condition could be
that the node sending the DCO-ACK does not find the routing entry
for the indicated target. When the sender does not set the 'K'
flag, it is an indication that the sender does not expect a
response, and the sender SHOULD NOT retry the DCO.
D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present. This
flag MUST be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.
Flags: The 6 bits remaining unused in the Flags field are reserved
for future use. These bits MUST be initialized to zero by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
RPL Status: As defined in [RFC6550] and updated in [RFC9010]. The
root or common parent that generates a DCO is authoritative for
setting the status information, and the information is unchanged
as propagated down the DODAG. This document does not specify a
differentiated action based on the RPL Status.
DCOSequence: 8-bit field incremented at each unique DCO message from
a node and echoed in the DCO-ACK message. The initial DCOSequence
can be chosen randomly by the node. Section 4.4 explains the
handling of the DCOSequence.
DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root
that uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field MUST be present when
the 'D' flag is set and MUST NOT be present if the 'D' flag is not
set. The DODAGID is used when a local RPLInstanceID is in use, in
order to identify the DODAGID that is associated with the
RPLInstanceID.
4.3.1. Secure DCO
A Secure DCO message follows the format shown in [RFC6550], Figure 7,
where the base message format is the DCO message shown in Figure 3 of
this document.
4.3.2. DCO Options
The DCO message MUST carry at least one RPL Target and the Transit
Information option and MAY carry other valid options. This
specification allows for the DCO message to carry the following
options:
0x00 Pad1
0x01 PadN
0x05 RPL Target
0x06 Transit Information
0x09 RPL Target Descriptor
Section 6.7 of [RFC6550] defines all the above-mentioned options.
The DCO carries a RPL Target option and an associated Transit
Information option with a lifetime of 0x00000000 to indicate a loss
of reachability to that target.
4.3.3. Path Sequence Number in the DCO
A DCO message may contain includes a Path Sequence in the Transit Information option to identify for each
invalidated path. The value of the Path Sequence counter in the
Transit Information option allows identification of the freshness of
the DCO message. The Path
Sequence message versus the newest known to the 6LRs along the path
being removed. If the DCO is generated by a common parent in
response to a DAO message, then the Transit Information option in the
DCO MUST use the same value of the Path Sequence number present as found in the regular DAO message when newest
Transit Information option that was received for that target by the
common parent. If a 6LR down the path receives a DCO with a Path
Sequence that is generated not newer than the Path Sequence as known from a
Transit Information option in response to a DAO message. Thus, if message, then the 6LR MUST NOT
remove its current routing state, and it MUST NOT forward the DCO
down a path where it is not newer. If the DCO is received by a newer, the 6LR and subsequently may
retain a temporary state to ensure that a DAO that is received later
with a Transit Information option with an old older sequence number, then number is
ignored. A Transit Information option in a DAO message that is as
new as or newer than that in a DCO wins, meaning that the path
indicated in the DAO MUST be
ignored. is installed and the DAO is propagated. When
the DCO is generated in response to propagated upon a DCO from an upstream parent, the Path
Sequence MUST be copied from the received DCO.
4.3.4. Destination Cleanup Option Acknowledgment (DCO-ACK)
The DCO-ACK message SHOULD be sent as a unicast packet by a DCO
recipient in response to a unicast DCO message with the 'K' flag set.
If the 'K' flag is not set, then the receiver of the DCO message MAY
send a DCO-ACK, especially to report an error condition. The format
of the DCO-ACK message is shown in Figure 4.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RPLInstanceID |D| Flags | DCOSequence | DCO-ACK Status|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ DODAGID (optional) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: DCO-ACK Base Object
RPLInstanceID: 8-bit field indicating the topology instance
associated with the DODAG, as learned from the DIO.
D: The 'D' flag indicates that the DODAGID field is present. This
flag MUST be set when a local RPLInstanceID is used.
Flags: 7-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to zero by
the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
DCOSequence: 8-bit field. The DCOSequence in the DCO-ACK is copied
from the DCOSequence received in the DCO message.
DCO-ACK Status: Indicates completion. completion status. The DCO-ACK Status
field is defined based on Figure 6 of [RFC9010] defining the RPL
Status Format. A value StatusValue of 0 is defined as
unqualified along with the 'U' bit set to 0
indicates Success / Unqualified acceptance in this specification. as per Figure 6 of
[RFC9010]. A value StatusValue of 1 is
defined as "No with the 'U' bit set to 1 indicates
'No routing entry". The remaining Status values are
reserved entry' as rejection codes. defined in Section 5.3 of this document.
DODAGID (optional): 128-bit unsigned integer set by a DODAG root
that uniquely identifies a DODAG. This field MUST be present when
the 'D' flag is set and MUST NOT be present when the 'D' flag is
not set. The DODAGID is used when a local RPLInstanceID is in
use, in order to identify the DODAGID that is associated with the
RPLInstanceID.
4.3.5. Secure DCO-ACK
A Secure DCO-ACK message follows the format shown in [RFC6550],
Figure 7, where the base message format is the DCO-ACK message shown
in Figure 4 of this document.
4.4. DCO Base Rules
1. If a node sends a DCO message with newer or different information
than the prior DCO message transmission, it MUST increment the
DCOSequence field by at least one. A DCO message transmission
that is identical to the prior DCO message transmission MAY
increment the DCOSequence field. The DCOSequence counter follows
the sequence counter operation as defined in Section 7.2 of
[RFC6550].
2. The RPLInstanceID and DODAGID fields of a DCO message MUST have
the same values as those contained in the DAO message in response
to which the DCO is generated on the common ancestor node.
3. A node MAY set the 'K' flag in a unicast DCO message to solicit a
unicast DCO-ACK in response, in order to confirm the attempt.
4. A node receiving a unicast DCO message with the 'K' flag set
SHOULD respond with a DCO-ACK. A node receiving a DCO message
without the 'K' flag set MAY respond with a DCO-ACK, especially
to report an error condition.
5. A node receiving a unicast DCO message MUST verify the stored
Path Sequence in context to the given target. If the stored Path
Sequence is more fresh, i.e., as new as or newer than the Path Sequence received in
the DCO, then the DCO MUST be dropped.
6. A node that sets the 'K' flag in a unicast DCO message but does
not receive a DCO-ACK in response MAY reschedule the DCO message
transmission for another attempt, up until an implementation-
specific number of retries.
7. A node receiving a unicast DCO message with its own address in
the RPL Target option MUST strip off that Target option. If this
Target option is the only one in the DCO message, then the DCO
message MUST be dropped.
The scope of DCOSequence values is unique to the node that generates
it.
them.
4.5. Unsolicited DCO
A 6LR may generate an unsolicited DCO to unilaterally clean up the
path on behalf of the target entry. The 6LR has all the state
information, namely, the Target Address and the Path Sequence,
required for generating a DCO in its routing table. The conditions
under which a 6LR may generate an unsolicited DCO are beyond the
scope of this document, but possible reasons could be as follows:
1. On route expiry of an entry, a 6LR may decide to graciously clean
up the entry by initiating a DCO.
2. A 6LR needs to entertain higher-priority entries in case the
routing table is full, thus resulting in eviction of an existing
routing entry. In this case, the eviction can be handled
graciously by using a DCO.
A DCO that is generated asynchronously to a DAO message and is meant
to discard all state along the path regardless of the Path Sequence
MUST use a Path Sequence value of 240 (see Section 7.2 of [RFC6550]).
This value allows the DCO to win against any established DAO path but
to lose against a DAO path that is being installed. Note that if the 6LR an
ancestor initiates a unilateral path cleanup on an established path
using a DCO
and if it has the latest state for the target, then with a Path Sequence value of 240, the DCO would
finally will
eventually reach the target node. Thus, the target node would node, which will thus be informed of its the
path invalidation.
4.6. Other Considerations
4.6.1. Invalidation of Dependent Nodes
The current RPL specification [RFC6550] does not provide a mechanism for
route invalidation for dependent nodes. This document allows the
invalidation of dependent nodes. Dependent nodes will generate their
respective DAOs to update their paths, and the previous route
invalidation for those nodes should work in a manner similar to what
is described for a switching node. The dependent node may set the
'I' flag in the Transit Information option as part of a regular DAO
so as to request invalidation of the previous route from the common
ancestor node.
Dependent nodes do not have any indication regarding whether any of
their parents have in turn decided to switch their parent. Thus, for
route invalidation, the dependent nodes may choose to always set the
'I' flag in all its their DAO message's messages' Transit Information options.
Note that setting the 'I' flag is not counterproductive even if there
is no previous route to be invalidated.
4.6.2. NPDAO and DCO in the Same Network
The current NPDAO mechanism provided in [RFC6550] can still be used in the
same network where a DCO is used. NPDAO messaging can be used, for
example, on route lifetime expiry of the target or when the node
simply decides to gracefully terminate the RPL session on graceful
node shutdown. Moreover, a deployment can have a mix of nodes
supporting the DCO and the existing NPDAO mechanism. It is also
possible that the same node supports both NPDAO and DCO signaling for
route invalidation.
Section 9.8 of [RFC6550] states, "When a node removes a node from its
DAO parent set, it SHOULD send a No-Path DAO message (Section 6.4.3)
to that removed DAO parent to invalidate the existing route." This
document introduces an alternative and more optimized way to perform
route invalidation, but it also allows existing NPDAO messaging to
work. Thus, an implementation has two choices to make when a route
invalidation is to be initiated:
1. Use an NPDAO to invalidate the previous route, and send a regular
DAO on the new path.
2. Send a regular DAO on the new path with the 'I' flag set in the
Transit Information option such that the common ancestor node
initiates the DCO message downstream to invalidate the previous
route.
This document recommends using option 2, for the reasons specified in
Section 3 of this document.
This document assumes that all the 6LRs in the network support this
specification. If there are 6LRs en-route DCO message path which 6LR nodes that do not support this document,
document that are in the path of the DCO message transmission, then
the route invalidation for the corresponding targets (targets that
are in the DCO message) may not work or may work partially, i.e., only
part of the path supporting the DCO may be invalidated. partially.
Alternatively, a node could generate an NPDAO if it does not receive
a DCO with itself as the target within a specified time limit. The
specified time limit is deployment specific and depends upon the
maximum depth of the network and per-hop average latency. Note that
sending an NPDAO and a DCO for the same operation would not result in
unwanted side effects because the acceptability of an NPDAO or a DCO
depends upon the Path Sequence freshness.
4.6.3. Considerations for DCO Retries
A DCO message could be retried by a sender if it sets the 'K' flag
and does not receive a DCO-ACK. The DCO retry time could be
dependent on the maximum depth of the network and average per-hop
latency. This could range from 2 seconds to 120 seconds, depending
on the deployment. If the latency limits are not known, an
implementation MUST NOT retry more than once in 3 seconds and MUST
NOT retry more than three times.
The number of retries could also be set depending on how critical the
route invalidation could be for the deployment and the link-layer
retry configuration. For networks supporting only Multi-Point to
Point (MP2P) and Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) flows, such as in
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and telemetry applications,
the 6LRs may not be very keen to invalidate routes, unless they are
highly memory constrained. For home and building automation networks
that may have substantial P2P traffic, the 6LRs might be keen to
invalidate efficiently because it may additionally impact forwarding
efficiency.
4.6.4. DCO with Multiple Preferred Parents
[RFC6550] allows a node to select multiple preferred parents for
route establishment. Section 9.2.1 of [RFC6550] specifies, "All DAOs
generated at the same time for the same target MUST be sent with the
same Path Sequence in the Transit Information." Subsequently, when
route invalidation has to be initiated, an NPDAO, which can be
initiated with an updated Path Sequence to all the parent nodes
through which the route is to be invalidated, can be used; see
[RFC6550].
With a DCO, the target node itself does not initiate the route
invalidation; this is left to the common ancestor node. A common
ancestor node when it discovers an updated DAO from a new next hop,
it initiates a DCO. With multiple preferred parents, this handling
does not change. But in this case, it It is recommended that an implementation
initiate a DCO after a time period (DelayDCO) such that the common
ancestor node may receive updated DAOs from all possible next hops.
This will help to reduce DCO control overhead, i.e., the common
ancestor can wait for updated DAOs from all possible directions
before initiating a DCO for route invalidation. After timeout, the
DCO needs to be generated for all the next hops for which the route
invalidation needs to be done.
This document recommends using a DelayDCO timer value of 1 second.
This value is inspired by the default DelayDAO timer value of 1
second [RFC6550]. Here, the hypothesis is that the DAOs from all
possible parent sets would be received on the common ancestor within
this time period.
It is still possible that a DCO is generated before all the updated
DAOs from all the paths are received. In this case, the ancestor
node would start the invalidation procedure for paths from which the
updated DAO is not received. The DCO generated in this case would
start invalidating the segments along these paths on which the
updated DAOs are not received. But once the DAO reaches these
segments, the routing state would be updated along these segments;
this should not lead to any inconsistent routing states.
Note that there is no requirement for synchronization between a DCO
and DAOs. The DelayDCO timer simply ensures that DCO control
overhead can be reduced and is only needed when the network contains
nodes using multiple preferred parents.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated codes for the DCO and DCO-ACK messages from the
"RPL Control Codes" registry.
+======+===========================================+===============+
| Code | Description | Reference |
+======+===========================================+===============+
| 0x07 | Destination Cleanup Object | This document |
+------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0x08 | Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgment | This document |
+------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0x87 | Secure Destination Cleanup Object | This document |
+------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0x88 | Secure Destination Cleanup Object | This document |
| | Acknowledgment | |
+------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1 1: New Codes for DCO and DCO-ACK Messages
IANA has allocated bit 1 from the "Transit Information Option Flags"
registry for the 'I' flag (Invalidate previous route; see
Section 4.2).
5.1. New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) Flags
IANA has created a registry for the 8-bit Destination Cleanup Object
(DCO) Flags field. The "Destination Cleanup Object (DCO) Flags"
registry is located in the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy
Networks (RPL)" registry.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each
bit is tracked with the following qualities:
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Capability description
* Defining RFC
The following bits are currently defined:
+============+==============================+===============+
| Bit number | Description | Reference |
+============+==============================+===============+
| 0 | DCO-ACK request (K) | This document |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | DODAGID field is present (D) | This document |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: DCO Base Flags
5.2. New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object Acknowledgment
(DCO-ACK) Status Field
IANA is requested to create a registry for the 8-bit Destination
Cleanup Object Acknowledgment (DCO-ACK) Status field. This registry
should be located in the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy
Networks (RPL)" registry.
New Status values may be allocated only by IETF Review [RFC8126].
Each value is tracked with the following qualities:
* Status Code
* Description
* Defining RFC
The following values are currently defined:
+=============+========================+===============+
| Status Code | Description | Reference |
+=============+========================+===============+
| 0 | Unqualified acceptance | This document |
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | No routing entry | This document |
+-------------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: DCO-ACK Status Codes
5.3. New Registry for the Destination Cleanup Object (DCO)
Acknowledgment Flags
IANA has created a registry for the 8-bit Destination Cleanup Object
(DCO) Acknowledgment Flags field. The "Destination Cleanup Object
(DCO) Acknowledgment Flags" registry is located in the "Routing
Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each
bit is tracked with the following qualities:
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Capability description
* Defining RFC
The following bit is currently defined:
+============+==============================+===============+
| Bit number | Description | Reference |
+============+==============================+===============+
| 0 | DODAGID field is present (D) | This document |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+
Table 4: 3: DCO-ACK Base Flag
5.3. RPL Rejection Status Values
This document adds a new status value to the "RPL Rejection Status"
subregistry initially created per Section 12.6 of [RFC9010].
+=======+==================+===============+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+==================+===============+
| 1 | No routing entry | This document |
+-------+------------------+---------------+
Table 4: Rejection Value of the RPL Status
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces the ability for a common ancestor node to
invalidate a route on behalf of the target node. The common ancestor
node could be directed to do so by the target node, using the 'I'
flag in a DCO's Transit Information option. However, the common
ancestor node is in a position to unilaterally initiate the route
invalidation, since it possesses all the required state information,
namely, the Target Address and the corresponding Path Sequence.
Thus, a rogue common ancestor node could initiate such an
invalidation and impact the traffic to the target node.
The DCO carries a RPL Status value, which is informative. New Status
values may be created over time, and a node will ignore an unknown
Status value. This enables the RPL Status field to be used as a
cover channel. But the channel only works once, since the message
destroys its own medium, that is i.e., the existing route that it is
removing.
This document also introduces an 'I' flag, which is set by the target
node and used by the ancestor node to initiate a DCO if the ancestor
sees an update in the routing adjacency. However, this flag could be
spoofed by a malicious 6LR in the path and can cause invalidation of
an existing active path. Note that invalidation will happen work only if
the other conditions such as Path Sequence condition is also met. met for the target for which the
invalidation is attempted. Having said that, such a malicious 6LR
may spoof a DAO on behalf of the (sub) child with the 'I' flag set
and can cause route invalidation on behalf of the (sub) child node.
Note that by using existing mechanisms offered by [RFC6550], a
malicious 6LR might also spoof a DAO with a lifetime of zero or
otherwise cause denial of service by dropping traffic entirely, so
the new mechanism described in this document does not present a
substantially increased risk of disruption.
This document assumes that the security mechanisms as defined in
[RFC6550] are followed, which means that the common ancestor node and
all the 6LRs are part of the RPL network because they have the
required credentials. A non-secure RPL network needs to take into
consideration the risks highlighted in this section as well as those
highlighted in [RFC6550].
All RPL messages support a secure version of messages; this allows
integrity protection using either a MAC Message Authentication Code (MAC)
or a signature. Optionally, secured RPL messages also have
encryption protection for confidentiality.
This document adds new messages (DCO and DCO-ACK) that are
syntactically similar to existing RPL messages such as DAO and DAO-
ACK. Secure versions of DCO and DCO-ACK messages are added in a way
that is similar to the technique used for other RPL messages (such as
DAO and DAO-ACK).
RPL supports three security modes, as mentioned in Section 10.1 of
[RFC6550]:
Unsecured: In this mode, it is expected that the RPL control
messages are secured by other security mechanisms, such as link-
layer security. In this mode, the RPL control messages, including
DCO and DCO-ACK messages, do not have Security sections. Also
note that unsecured mode does not imply that all messages are sent
without any protection.
Preinstalled: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus, secure
versions of DCO and DCO-ACK messages MUST be used in this mode.
Authenticated: In this mode, RPL uses secure messages. Thus, secure
versions of DCO and DCO-ACK messages MUST be used in this mode.
7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[RFC9010] Thubert, P., Ed. and M. Richardson, "Routing for RPL
(Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks)
Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC9010, March April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9010>.
Appendix A. Example Messaging
A.1. Example DCO Messaging
In this example, node (D) Node D (Figure 1) switches its parent from (B) B to
(C). C.
This example assumes that Node D has already established its own
route via Node B-G-A-6LBR using pathseq=x. The example uses DAO and
DCO messaging conventions and specifies only the required parameters
to explain the example, namely, the parameter 'tgt', which stands for
"Target option"; the value of this parameter specifies the address of
the target node. The parameter 'pathseq' specifies the Path Sequence
value carried in the Transit Information option, and the parameter
'I_flag' specifies the 'I' flag in the Transit Information option.
The sequence of actions is as follows:
1. Node D switches its parent from node Node B to node Node C.
2. D sends a regular DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1) in the updated
path to C.
3. C checks for a routing entry on behalf of D; since it cannot find
an entry on behalf of D, it creates a new routing entry and
forwards the reachability information of the target D to H in a
DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1).
4. Similar to C, node Node H checks for a routing entry on behalf of D,
cannot find an entry, and hence creates a new routing entry and
forwards the reachability information of the target D to A in a
DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1).
5. Node A receives the DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1) and checks
for a routing entry on behalf of D. It finds a routing entry but
checks that the next hop for target D is different (i.e., Node
G). Node A checks the I_flag and generates the
DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1) to the previous next hop for target D,
which is G. Subsequently, Node A updates the routing entry and
forwards the reachability information of target D upstream using
the DAO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1,I_flag=1).
6. Node G receives the DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1). It checks to see if
the received Path Sequence is later than the stored Path
Sequence. If it is later, Node G invalidates the routing entry
of target D and forwards the (un)reachability information
downstream to B in the DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1).
7. Similarly, B processes the DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1) by invalidating
the routing entry of target D and forwards the (un)reachability
information downstream to D.
8. D ignores the DCO(tgt=D,pathseq=x+1), since the target is itself.
9. The propagation of the DCO will stop at any node where the node
does not have routing information associated with the target. If
cached routing information is present and the cached Path
Sequence is higher than the value in the DCO, then the DCO is
dropped.
A.2. Example DCO Messaging with Multiple Preferred Parents
As shown in Figure 5, node (N41) selects multiple preferred parents
(N32) and (N33). The sequence of actions is listed below the figure.
(6LBR)
|
|
|
(N11)
/ \
/ \
/ \
(N21) (N22)
/ / \
/ / \
/ / \
(N31) (N32) (N33)
: | /
: | /
: | /
(N41)
Figure 5: Sample Topology 2
1. (N41) sends a DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N32) and (N33).
Here, 'I_flag' refers to the Invalidation flag, and 'PS' refers
to the Path Sequence in the Transit Information option.
2. (N32) sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N22). (N33) also
sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N22). (N22) learns
multiple routes for the same destination (N41) through multiple
next hops. (N22) may receive the DAOs from (N32) and (N33) in
any order with the I_flag set. The implementation should use
the DelayDCO timer to wait to initiate the DCO. If (N22)
receives an updated DAO from all the paths, then the DCO need
not be initiated in this case. Thus, the routing table at N22
should contain (Dst,NextHop,PS): { (N41,N32,x), (N41,N33,x) }.
3. (N22) sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (N11).
4. (N11) sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x,I_flag=1) to (6LBR). Thus, the
complete path is established.
5. (N41) decides to change the preferred parent set from
{ N32, N33 } to { N31, N32 }.
6. (N41) sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N32). (N41)
sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N31).
7. (N32) sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N22). (N22)
has multiple routes to destination (N41). It sees that a new
Path Sequence for Target=N41 is received and thus waits for a
predetermined time period (the DelayDCO time period) to
invalidate another route {(N41),(N33),x}. { (N41),(N33),x }. After the time
period, (N22) sends the DCO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1) to (N33). Also
(N22) sends the regular DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N11).
8. (N33) receives the DCO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1). The received Path
Sequence is the latest and thus invalidates the entry associated
with the target (N41). (N33) then sends the DCO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1)
to (N41). (N41) sees itself as the target and drops the DCO.
9. From Step 6 above, (N31) receives the
DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1). It creates a routing entry and
sends the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N21). Similarly,
(N21) receives the DAO and subsequently sends the
DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (N11).
10. (N11) receives the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) from (N21). It
waits for the DelayDCO timer, since it has multiple routes to
(N41). (N41) will receive the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) from
(N22) from Step 7 above. Thus, (N11) has received the regular
DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) from all paths and thus does not
initiate the DCO.
11. (N11) forwards the DAO(tgt=N41,PS=x+1,I_flag=1) to (6LBR), and
the full path is established.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Alvaro Retana, Cenk Gundogan, Simon Duquennoy,
Georgios Papadopoulos, and Peter van der Stok for their review and
comments. Alvaro Retana helped shape this document's final version
with critical review comments.
Authors' Addresses
Rahul Arvind Jadhav (editor)
Huawei
Whitefield
Kundalahalli Village
Bangalore 560037
Karnataka
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33-497-23-26-34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Rabi Narayan Sahoo
Huawei
Whitefield
Kundalahalli Village
Bangalore 560037
Karnataka
India
Phone: +91-080-49160700
Email: rabinarayans@huawei.com rabinarayans0828@gmail.com
Zhen Cao
Huawei
W Chang'an Ave
Beijing
China
Email: zhencao.ietf@gmail.com