-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-00.xml
1664 lines (1507 loc) · 50.6 KB
/
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-00.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC6550 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6550.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 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 I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture.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. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. 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="info" docName="draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-09" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
or pre5378Trust200902
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="Useof6553">When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6</title>
<author initials="M.I." surname="Robles" fullname="Maria Ines Robles">
<organization abbrev="Ericsson">Ericsson</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Hirsalantie 11</street>
<city>Jorvas</city>
<code>02420</code>
<country>Finland</country>
</postal>
<email>maria.ines.robles@ericsson.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>
</postal>
<email>mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca</email>
<uri>http://www.sandelman.ca/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert">
<organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street> Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille</street>
<city>Batiment T3</city>
<region>Biot - Sophia Antipolis </region>
<code>06410</code>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<email>pthubert@cisco.com </email>
<uri></uri>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2016" />
<area>Internet</area>
<workgroup>ROLL Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>RPL Option</keyword>
<keyword>6LoWPAN</keyword>
<keyword>RFC 6553</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
This document states different cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required to set the
bases to help defining the compression of RPL routing information in LLN environments.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>
RPL <xref target="RFC6550"/> is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553 <xref target="RFC6553"/> defines the "RPL option", carried within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies in the routing topology. RFC 6554 <xref target="RFC6554"/> defines the "RPL Source Route Header", an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a RPL routing domain.
</t>
<t>
Several discussions in the ROLL/6lo/6TiSCH Mailing Lists took place focusing in the definition of how to compress RPL Information in constrained environment.
ROLL Virtual Interim Meeting (02-2015) concluded that there is a need to define how to use <xref target="RFC6553"/>, <xref target="RFC6554"/> and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to be able to set the correct environment for compression. <xref target="I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch">A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH)</xref> defines a method to compress RPL Option information and Routing Header type 3 (RFC6554) and an efficient IP-in-IP technique.
</t>
<t>
This document is going to be focused in data plane messages and how can be transmitted within the above mentioned RFCs.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Terminology and Requirements Language">
<t>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described
in <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.
</t>
<t>
Terminology defined in <xref target="RFC7102"/>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Sample/reference topology">
<t>
A RPL network is composed of a 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), Backbone Router (6BBR), 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf logically organized in a DODAG structure (Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph).
</t>
<t>
RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane ), a new ICMPv6 message with Type 155. DIS, DIO and DAO messages are all RPL Control messages but with different Code values.
</t>
<t>
RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode, it is fully stateful or an in non-storing, it is fully source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully
non-storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non-storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications.
</t>
<t>
<figure title="RPL Stack."
anchor="fig_RPLStack" align="center">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+--------------+
| Upper Layers |
| |
+--------------+
| RPL |
| |
+--------------+
| ICMPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| IPv6 |
| |
+--------------+
| 6LoWPAN |
| |
+--------------+
| PHY-MAC |
| |
+--------------+
]]></artwork></figure>
</t>
<t>
<figure title="A reference RPL Topology." anchor="fig_CommonTopology" align="center">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------+
+---+Internet |
| +---------+
|
+----+--+
|DODAG |
+---------+Root +----------+
| |6LBR | |
| +----+--+ |
| | |
| | |
... ... ...
| | |
+-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+
|6LR | | | | |
+-----+ | | | | |
| | | | | | +------+
| +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+
|Leaf | | | | | | | | |
|6LN | | | | | | | | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+
]]></artwork></figure>
</t>
<t>
This document is in part motivated by the work that is ongoing at the
6TiSCH working group.
The <xref target="I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture">6TiSCH architecture
</xref> draft explains the network architecture of a 6TiSCH network.
This architecture is used for the remainder of this document.
</t>
<t> The scope of the 6TiSCH Architecture is a Backbone Link that
federates multiple LLNs (mesh) as a single IPv6 Multi-Link Subnet.
Each LLN in the subnet is anchored at a Backbone Router (6BBR).
The Backbone Routers interconnect the LLNs over the Backbone Link and
emulate that the LLN nodes are present on the Backbone thus creating a
so-called: Multi-Link Subnet. An LLN node can move freely from an LLN
anchored at a Backbone Router to another LLN anchored at the same or a
different Backbone Router inside the Multi-Link Subnet and conserve its
addresses.
</t>
<t>
<figure anchor='figNetwork'
title="RPL domain architecture">
<artwork><![CDATA[
|
+-----+
| | Border Router to the RPL domain
| | (may be a RPL virtual root)
+-----+
|
| Backbone
+-------------------+-------------------+
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone
| | router | | router | | router
+|---|+ +-|||-+ +-[_]-+
| | PCI-exp / | \ USB | Ethernet
( ) ( ) ( )( )( ) (6LBR == RPL DODAG root)
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o 6LR == RPL router) o o
o o o o o o o z
o o o o o o (6LoWPAN Host)
<----------------------- RPL Instance ------------------------>
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Use cases">
<t>
In data plane context a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is going to be analyzed for the following traffic flows:
<list>
<t>
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root
</t>
<t>
-Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root
</t>
<t>
-Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
</t>
<t>
-Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet
</t>
<t>
-Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
<t>
-Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
This document assumes a rule that a Header cannot be inserted or
removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed.
</t>
<t>
- This means that an intermediate router that needs to add a header must
encapsulate the packet in an outer IP header where the new header can be
placed.
</t>
<t>
- This also means that a Header can only be removed by an intermediate router
if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header, and in that case, the whole
encapsulating header must be removed - a replacement may be added.
</t>
<t>
This document recognizes that some headers such as a Routing Header or a
Hop-by-Hop header may be modified by routers on the path of the packet
without the need to add to remove an encapsulating header.
</t>
<t>
The RPL RH and the RPL option are mutable but recoverable .
</t>
<t>
RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is an exception in non-storing mode, when a packet is going down from the route: the entire route is written, so there are no loops of confusion about which table to use (purpose of instanceID).
</t>
<t>
The applicability for storing (RPL-SN) and non-Storing (RPL-NSN) modes for the previous cases is showed as follows:
</t>
<texttable anchor="table_ex" title="Posibility to transmit in Storing or Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP encapsulation" >
<ttcol> Use Case </ttcol>
<ttcol> RPL-SN RPI (RFC 6553) </ttcol>
<ttcol> RPL-SN RH3 (RFC 6554) </ttcol>
<ttcol> RPL-SN IP-in-IP </ttcol>
<ttcol> RPL-NSN RPI </ttcol>
<ttcol> RPL-NSN RH3 </ttcol>
<ttcol> RPL-NSN IP-in-IP </ttcol>
<c> RPL-aware-leaf to root</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> root to RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> not-RPL-aware-leaf to root</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> root to not-RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> RPL-aware-leaf to Internet</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Internet to RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf </c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> No</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
<c> Yes</c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Storing mode">
<section title=" Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root">
<t>
As states in Section 16.2 of <xref target="RFC6550"/> a RPL-aware-leaf node does not generally issue DIO messages, a leaf node accepts DIO messages
(In inconsistency a leaf node generates DIO with infinite rank, to fix it). It may issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS messages.
</t>
<t>
In storing mode is suitable the use of RFC 6553 to send RPL Information through HBH field checking the routing table to find out where to send the message.
</t>
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> 6LR,... --> root (6LBR) Note: In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full-fledge RPL routers
</t>
<t>
The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and send the packet to 6LR which decrement the rank in RPI and send the packet up. When the packet arrives to 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> RPI</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> --</c>
<c> --</c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
</t>
<t>
In this case the 6LBR insert RPI header and send the packet down, the 6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID for multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
root (6LBR)--> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
</t>
<t>
It includes IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation to transmit information not related with the RPL domain. In the 6LBR the RPI header is inserted into an IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the last 6LR, which removes the header before pass the packet to the IPv6 node.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR)
</t>
<t>
When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR. This router insert the RPI encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to the root. The root removes the header and process the packet
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)</c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet">
<t>
RPL information from RFC 6553 should not go out to Internet. The router should take this information out before send the packet to Internet. The HBH Option is going to be analyzed in each node to the root.
</t>
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
</t>
<t>
6LN insert RPI in a IPv6-in-IPv6 in a outer header, and send the packet to 6LR, which modified the rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives to 6LBR, the RPI is removed.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<ttcol> Internet</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI)</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>RPI </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
</t>
<t>
When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and send to 6LR, which modifies the rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives 6LN the RPI header is removed and the packet processed.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> Internet</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) = IPv6 node --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> Internet
</t>
<t>
In the IPv6 node the flow label is assumed to be zero, the packet is transmited to 6LR which encapsule the RPI header in an outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and send to 6LBR, which removes this header and send the packet to Internet and might set the flow label field.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6 </ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<ttcol> Internet</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> --</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (6LN)
</t>
<t>
6LBR get the packet from Internet and add a RPI header encapsulated in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header addressed to 6LR and send the packet down. The flow label is set to zero on inner IP. The last 6LR removes the RPI header. The IPv6 node might set the flow label since may arrive with zero value. The 6LBR does not know that the is attached to the last 6LR. The non-RPL-aware-leaf drops packet, because RPI has unknown header 0x63, and 0x63 has “01” = discard packet. If RPI had 0x23, it would “skip”.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> Internet</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LBR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>-- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In <xref target="RFC6550"/> RPL allows a simple one-hop P2P optimization for both storing and non-storing networks.
A node may send a P2P packet destined to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in <xref target="RFC6550"/>.
</t>
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
</t>
<t>
This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent, the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the rank).
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN src</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR (common parent)</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN dst</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> RPI </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI</c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> RPI (decreasing rank) </c>
<c> RPI (increasing rank)</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN
</t>
<t>
Somehow, the sender has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware, and needs to know 6LR,
and not even the root knows where the 6LR is (in storing mode). This case FAILS. This needs to be signaled. Attribute of ::/0 route? Or implicit because destination not matching PIO?
If in doubt, add IPIP? IPIP dst = 6LBR (00)
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR (common parent)</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> 6LN
</t>
<t>
The 6LR that get the packet from IPv6 node, insert the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header with destination to 6LN, the common parent change the direction of RPI and finally it is removed by 6LN.
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> common parent (6LR)</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LN</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> --</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> Re-added headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Modified headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Untouched headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title=" Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf">
<t>
In this case the flow comprises:
</t>
<t>
not-RPL-aware 6LN --> 6LR --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN
</t>
<t>
The problem to solve is how to indicate where to send the packet when get into LLN. Should attributes be added to the border router indicating this?
</t>
<texttable title="Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf">
<ttcol> Header</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6 src</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR (common parent)</ttcol>
<ttcol> 6LR</ttcol>
<ttcol> IPv6 dst</ttcol>
<c> Inserted headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> Removed headers</c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c> -- </c>
<c>IPv6-in-IPv6(RPI) </c>
<c> -- </c>