| Internet-Draft | DAO Projection | July 2021 |
| Thubert, et al. | Expires 13 January 2022 | [Page] |
This document extends RFC 6550 and RFC 6553 to enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG, along a selected set of nodes that may or may not include self, for a chosen duration. This potentially enables routes that are more optimized or resilient than those obtained with the classical distributed operation of RPL, either in terms of the size of a Routing Header or in terms of path length, which impacts both the latency and the packet delivery ratio.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 January 2022.¶
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.¶
RPL, the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RPL] (LLNs), is a generic Distance Vector protocol that is well suited for application in a variety of low energy Internet of Things (IoT) networks. RPL forms Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graphs (DODAGs) in which the Root often acts as the Border Router to connect the RPL domain to the Internet. The Root is responsible to select the RPL Instance that is used to forward a packet coming from the Internet into the RPL domain and set the related RPL information in the packets. 6TiSCH uses RPL for its routing operations.¶
The "6TiSCH Architecture" [6TiSCH-ARCHI] also leverages the "Deterministic Networking Architecture" [RFC8655] centralized model whereby the device resources and capabilities are exposed to an external controller which installs routing states into the network based on some objective functions that reside in that external entity. With DetNet and 6TiSCH, the component of the controller that is responsible of computing routes is called a Path Computation Element ([PCE]).¶
Based on heuristics of usage, path length, and knowledge of device capacity and available resources such as battery levels and reservable buffers, the PCE with a global visibility on the system can compute direct Peer to Peer (P2P) routes that are optimized for the needs expressed by an objective function. This document specifies protocol extensions to RPL [RPL] that enable the Root of a main DODAG to install centrally-computed routes inside the DODAG on behalf of a PCE.¶
This specification expects that the main RPL Instance is operated in RPL Non-Storing Mode of Operation (MOP) to sustain the exchanges with the Root. In that Mode, the Root has enough information to build a basic DODAG topology based on parents and children, but lacks the knowledge of siblings. This document adds the capability for nodes to advertise sibling information in order to improve the topological awareness of the Root.¶
As opposed to the classical RPL operations where routes are injected by the Target nodes, the protocol extensions enable the Root of a DODAG to project the routes that are needed onto the nodes where they should be installed. This specification uses the term Projected Route to refer to those routes. Projected Routes can be used to reduce the size of the source routing headers with loose source routing operations down the main RPL DODAG. Projected Routes can also be used to build transversal routes for route optimization and Traffic Engineering purposes, between nodes of the DODAG.¶
A Projected Route may be installed in either Storing and Non-Storing Mode, potentially resulting in hybrid situations where the Mode of the Projected Route is different from that of the main RPL Instance. A Projected Route may be a stand-alone end-to-end path or a Segment in a more complex forwarding graph called a Track.¶
The concept of a Track was introduced in the 6TiSCH architecture, as a potentially complex path with redundant forwarding solutions along the way. With this specification, a Track is a DODAG formed by a RPL local Instance that is rooted at the Track Ingress. If there is a single Track Egress, then the Track is reversible to form another DODAG by reversing the direction of each edge. A node at the ingress of more than one Segment in a Track may use one or more of these Segments to forward a packet inside the Track.¶
The "Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Architecture/Framework" [RAW-ARCHI] defines the Path Selection Engine (PSE) that adapts the use of the path redundancy within a Track to defeat the diverse causes of packet loss.¶
The PSE is a dataplane extension of the PCE; it controls the forwarding operation of the packets within a Track, using Packet ARQ, Replication, Elimination, and Overhearing (PAREO) functions over the Track segments, to provide a dynamic balance between the reliability and availability requirements of the flows and the need to conserve energy and spectrum.¶
The time scale at which the PCE (re)computes the Track can be long, using long-term statistical metrics to perform global optimizations at the scale of the whole network. Conversely, the PSE makes forwarding decisions at the time scale of one or a small collection of packets, based on a knowledge that is limited in scope to the Track itself, so it can be refreshed at a fast pace.¶
Projected Routes must be used with the parsimony to limit the amount of state that is installed in each device to fit within the device resources, and to maintain the amount of rerouted traffic within the capabilities of the transmission links. The methods used to learn the node capabilities and the resources that are available in the devices and in the network are out of scope for this document.¶
This specification uses the RPL Root as a proxy to the PCE. The PCE may be collocated with the Root, or may reside in an external Controller.¶
In that case, the PCE exchanges control messages with the Root over a Southbound API that is out of scope for this specification. The algorithm to compute the paths and the protocol used by an external PCE to obtain the topology of the network from the Root are also out of scope.¶
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 document often uses the following acronyms:¶
In this document, readers will encounter terms and concepts that are discussed in the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RPL] and "Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks" [RFC7102].¶
Section 6 of [RPL] introduces the RPL Control Message Options (CMO), including the RPL Target Option (RTO) and Transit Information Option (TIO), which can be placed in RPL messages such as the Destination Advertisement Object (DAO). This specification extends the DAO message with the Projected DAO (P-DAO); a P-DAO message signals a Projected Route to one or more Targets using the new CMOs presented therein. This specification enables to combine one or more Projected Routes into a DODAG called a Track, that is traversed to reach the Targets.¶
The Track is assimilated with the DODAG formed for a Local RPL Instance. The local RPLInstanceID of the Track is called the TrackID, more in Section 7.2. A P-DAO message for a Track signals the TrackID in the RPLInstanceID field. The Track Ingress is signaled in the DODAGID field of the Projected DAO Base Object; that field is elided in the case of the main RPL Instance. The Track Ingress is the Root of the Track, as shown in Figure 1.¶
This specification defines the new "Projected DAO" (P) flag. The 'P' flag is encoded in bit position 2 (to be confirmed by IANA) of the Flags field in the DAO Base Object. The Root MUST set it to 1 in a Projected DAO message. Otherwise it MUST be set to 0. It is set to 0 in legacy implementations as specified respectively in Sections 20.11 and 6.4 of [RPL]. .¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TrackID |K|D|P| Flags | Reserved | DAOSequence | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + IPv6 Address of the Track Ingress + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option(s)... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
New fields:¶
1-bit flag (position to be confirmed by IANA).¶
The 'P' flag is set to 1 by the Root to signal a Projected DAO, and it is set to 0 otherwise.¶
In RPL Non-Storing Mode, the TIO and RTO are combined in a DAO message to inform the DODAG Root of all the edges in the DODAG, which are formed by the directed parent-child relationships. Options may be factorized; multiple RTOs may be present to signal a collection of children that can be reached via the parent(s) indicated in the TIO(s) that follows the RTOs. This specification generalizes the case of a parent that can be used to reach a child with that of a whole Track through which both children and siblings of the Track Egress are reachable.¶
New CMOs called the Via Information Options (VIO) are introduced for use in P-DAO messages as a multihop alternative to the TIO. One VIO is the Stateful VIO (SF-VIO); the SF-VIO installs Storing-Mode Projected Route along a strict segment. The other is the Source-Routed VIO (SR-VIO); the SR-VIO installs a Non-Storing-Mode Projected Route at the Track Ingress, which uses that state to encapsulate a packet with a Routing Header (RH) to the Track Egress.¶
Like in a DAO message, the RTOs can be factorized in a P-DAO, but the Via Information Options cannot. A P-DAO contains one or more RTOs that indicate the destinations that can be reached via the Track, and exactly one VIO that signals a sequence of nodes. In Non-Storing Mode, the Root sends the P-DAO to the Track Ingress where the source-routing state is stored. In Storing Mode, the P-DAO is sent to the Track Egress and forwarded along the Segment in the reverse direction, installing a Storing Mode state to the Track Egress at each hop. In both cases the Track Ingress is the owner of the Track, and it generates the P-DAO-ACK when the installation is successful.¶
This specification adds another CMO called the Sibling Information Option (SIO) that is used by a RPL Aware Node (RAN) to advertise a selection of its candidate neighbors as siblings to the Root, more in Section 6.4. The sibling selection process is out of scope. The expectation is that a node reports a Sibling Address in a SIO based on an active address registration [RFC8505] from that sibling for that address with the 'R' flag not set in the EARO. The node may assess the liveliness of the sibling at any time by performing a registration for one of its own addresses, either a link local or a global one, depending on whether the node expects the sibling to perform a matching advertisement in its own SIO.¶
Two new RPL Control Messages are also introduced, to enable a RAN to request the establishment of a Track between self as the Track Ingress Node and a Track Egress. The RAN makes its request by sending a new P-DAO Request (PDR) Message to the Root. The Root confirms with a new PDR-ACK message back to the requester RAN, see Section 6.1 for more. A positive PDR-ACK indicates that the Track was built and that the Roots commits to maintain the Track for the negotiated lifetime. In the case of a complex Track, each Segment is maintained independently and asynchronously by the Root, with its own lifetime that may be shorter, the same, or longer than that of the Track. The Root may use an asynchronous PDR-ACK with an negative status to indicate that the Track was terminated before its time.¶
Sending a Packet within a RPL Local Instance requires the presence of the abstract RPL Packet Information (RPI) described in section 11.2. of [RPL] in the outer IPv6 Header chain (see [USEofRPLinfo]). The RPI carries a local RPLInstanceID which, in association with either the source or the destination address in the IPv6 Header, indicates the RPL Instance that the packet follows.¶
This specification extends [RPL] to create a new flag that signals that a packet is forwarded along a projected route.¶
"The RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams" [RFC6553]describes the RPL Option for use among RPL routers to include the abstract RPL Packet Information (RPI) described in section 11.2. of [RPL] in data packets.¶
The RPL Option is commonly referred to as the RPI though the RPI is really the abstract information that is transported in the RPL Option. [USEofRPLinfo] updated the Option Type from 0x63 to 0x23.¶
This specification modifies the RPL Option to encode the 'P' flag as follows:¶
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|R|F|P|0|0|0|0| RPLInstanceID | SenderRank |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (sub-TLVs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Section 6.3 of [RFC8138] presents the formats of the 6LoWPAN Routing Header of type 5 (RPI-6LoRH) that compresses the RPI for normal RPL operation. The format of the RPI-6LoRH is not suited for Projected routes since the O,R,F flags are not used and the Rank is unknown and ignored.¶
This specification introduces a new 6LoRH, the P-RPI-6LoRH, with a type of 7. The P-RPI-6LoRH header is usually a a Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header, but it can be elective as well if an SRH-6LoRH is present and controls the routing decision.¶
The P-RPI-6LoRH is designed to compress the RPI along RPL Projected Routes. It sformat is as follows:¶
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0|E| Length | 6LoRH Type 7 | RPLInstanceID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The P-DAO Request (PDR) message is sent by a Node in the main DODAG to the Root. It is a request to establish or refresh a Track where this node is Track Ingress. The source IPv6 address of the PDR signals the Track Ingress of the requested Track, and the TrackID is indicated in the message itself. One and only one RPL Target Option MUST be present in the message. The RTO signals the Track Egress, more in Section 7.1.¶
The RPL Control Code for the PDR is 0x09, to be confirmed by IANA. The format of PDR Base Object is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TrackID |K|R| Flags | ReqLifetime | PDRSequence | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option(s)... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8-bit unsigned integer. The requested lifetime for the Track expressed in Lifetime Units (obtained from the DODAG Configuration option).¶
A PDR with a fresher PDRSequence refreshes the lifetime, and a PDRLifetime of 0 indicates that the track should be destroyed.¶
8-bit wrapping sequence number, obeying the operation in section 7.2 of [RPL]. The PDRSequence is used to correlate a PDR-ACK message with the PDR message that triggered it. It is incremented at each PDR message and echoed in the PDR-ACK by the Root.¶
The new PDR-ACK is sent as a response to a PDR message with the 'K' flag set. The RPL Control Code for the PDR-ACK is 0x0A, to be confirmed by IANA. Its format is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TrackID | Flags | Track Lifetime| PDRSequence | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PDR-ACK Status| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option(s)... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8-bit field indicating the completion. The PDR-ACK Status is substructured as indicated in Figure 6:¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E|R| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A VIO signals the ordered list of IPv6 Via Addresses that constitutes the hops of either a Serial Track or a Segment of a more Complex Track. A VIO MUST contain at least one Via Address, and a Via Address MUST NOT be present more than once, otherwise the VIO MUST be ignored. The format of the Via Information Options is as follows:¶
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 | Option Length | Flags | SegmentID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Segm. Sequence | Seg. Lifetime | SRH-6LoRH header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
. .
. Via Address 1 .
. .
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .... .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
. .
. Via Address n .
. .
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8-bit unsigned integer. The Segment Sequence obeys the operation in section 7.2 of [RPL] and the lollipop starts at 255.¶
When the Root of the DODAG needs to refresh or update a Segment in a Track, it increments the Segment Sequence individually for that Segment.¶
The Segment information indicated in the VIO deprecates any state for the Segment indicated by the SegmentID within the indicated Track and sets up the new information.¶
A VIO with a Segment Sequence that is not as fresh as the current one is ignored.¶
A VIO for a given DODAGID with the same (TrackID, SegmentID, Segment Sequence) indicates a retry; it MUST NOT change the Segment and MUST be propagated or answered as the first copy.¶
8-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in Lifetime Units (obtained from the Configuration option) that the Segment is usable.¶
The period starts when a new Segment Sequence is seen. The value of 255 (0xFF) represents infinity. The value of zero (0x00) indicates a loss of reachability.¶
A P-DAO message that contains a VIO with a Segment Lifetime of zero is referred as a No-Path P-DAO in this document.¶
An IPv6 address along the Segment.¶
In a SF-VIO, the list is a strict path between direct neighbors, from the Segment Ingress to Egress, both included. The router that processes an SF-VIO MAY create additional routing state towards the nodes after self via the node immediately after self in the SF-VIO, but in case of memory shortage the routes to the Targets have precedence since they are the ones that the router commits to store.¶
In an SR-VIO, the list includes the egress but not the ingress node. It starts at the first hop and ends at a Track Egress. In that case, the Track Egress MUST be considered as an implicit Target, so it MUST NOT be listed it in a RPL Target Option. The list in an SR-VIO may be loose, provided that each listed node has a path to the next listed node, e.g., via a segment or another Track.¶
In the case of a SF-VIO, or if [RFC8138] is not used in the data packets, then the Root MUST use only one SRH-6LoRH per Via Information Option, and the compression is the same for all the addresses, as shown in Figure 7.¶
In case of an SR-VIO, and if [RFC8138] is in use in the main DODAG, then the Root SHOULD optimize the size of the SR-VIO; more than one SRH-6LoRH may be present, e.g., if the compression level changes inside the Segment and different SRH-6LoRH Types are required. The content of the SR-VIO starting at the first SRH-6LoRH header is thus verbatim the one that the Track Ingress places in the packet encapsulation to reach the Track Ingress.¶
The Sibling Information Option (SIO) provides indication on siblings that could be used by the Root to form Projected Routes. One or more SIO(s) may be placed in the DAO messages that are sent to the Root in Non-Storing Mode.¶
The format of the SIO is as follows:¶
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 | Option Length |Comp.|B|D|Flags| Opaque |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Step of Rank | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
. .
. Sibling DODAGID (if the D flag not set) .
. .
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
. .
. Sibling Address .
. .
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
An SIO MAY be immediately followed by a DAG Metric Container. In that case the DAG Metric Container provides additional metrics for the hop from the Sibling to this node.¶
This draft adds a capability to RPL whereby the Root of a main DODAG installs a Track as a collection of Projected Routes, using a Projected-DAO (P-DAO) message to maintain each individual route. The P-DAO signals a collection of Targets in the RPL Target Option(s) (RTO). Those Targets can be reached via a sequence of routers indicated in a VIO. A P-DAO message MUST contain exactly one VIO, which is either a SF-VIO or an SR-VIO, and MUST follow one or more RTOs. There can be at most one such sequence of RTO(s) and an Via Information Option. A track is identified by a tuple DODAGID, TrackID and each route within a Track is indexed by a SegmentID.¶
A P-DAO MUST be sent from the address of the Root that serves as DODAGID for the main DODAG. It MUST be sent to a GUA or a ULA of either the ingress or the egress of the Segment, more below. If the 'K' Flag is present in the P-DAO, and unless the P-DAO does not reach it, the ingress of the Segment is the node that acknowledges the message, using a DAO-ACK that MUST be sent back to the address that serves as DODAGID for the main DODAG.¶
Like a classical DAO message, a P-DAO causes a change of state only if it is "new" per section 9.2.2. "Generation of DAO Messages" of the RPL specification [RPL]; this is determined using the Segment Sequence information from the VIO as opposed to the Path Sequence from a TIO. Also, a Segment Lifetime of 0 in a VIO indicates that the projected route associated to the Segment is to be removed.¶
There are two kinds of operation for the Projected Routes, the Storing Mode and the Non-Storing Mode.¶
In case of a forwarding error along a Projected Route, an ICMP error is sent to the Root with a new Code "Error in Projected Route" (See Section 11.13). The Root can then modify or remove the Projected Route. The "Error in Projected Route" message has the same format as the "Destination Unreachable Message", as specified in RFC 4443 [RFC4443].¶
The portion of the invoking packet that is sent back in the ICMP message SHOULD record at least up to the RH if one is present, and this hop of the RH SHOULD be consumed by this node so that the destination in the IPv6 header is the next hop that this node could not reach. if a 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH) [RFC8138] is used to carry the IPv6 routing information in the outer header then that whole 6LoRH information SHOULD be present in the ICMP message.¶
The sender and exact operation depend on the Mode and is described in Section 7.3.2 and Section 7.3.1 respectively.¶
A Node is free to ask the Root for a new Track for which it will be Ingress at any time. This is done with a PDR message, that indicates the desired TrackID and the duration for which the Track should be established. Upon a PDR, the Root MAY install the necessary Segments, in which case it answers with a PDR-ACK indicating the granted Track Lifetime. All the Segments MUST be of a same mode, either Storing or Non-Storing. All the Segments MUST be created with the same TrackID and the same DODAGID signaled in the P-DAO.¶
The Root is free to design the Track as it wishes, and to change the Segments overtime to serve the Track as needed, without notifying the resquesting Node. The Segment Lifetime in the P-DAO messages does not need to be aligned to the Requested Lifetime in the PDR, or between P-DAO messages for different Segments. The Root may use shorter lifetimes for the Segments and renew them faster than the Track is, or longer lifetimes in which case it will need to tear down the Segments if the Track is not renewed.¶
When the Track Lifetime that was returned in the PDR-ACK is close to elapse, the resquesting Node needs to resend a PDR using the TrackID in the PDR-ACK to extend the lifetime of the Track, else the Track will time out and the Root will tear down the whole structure.¶
If the Track fails and cannot be restored, the Root notifies the resquesting Node asynchronously with a PDR-ACK with a Track Lifetime of 0, indicating that the Track has failed, and a PDR-ACK Status indicating the reason of the fault.¶
RPL defines the concept of an Instance to signal an individual routing topology but does not have a concept of an administrative distance, which exists in certain proprietary implementations to sort out conflicts between multiple sources of routing information within one routing topology.¶
This draft leverages the RPL Instance model as follows:¶
The Root MAY use P-DAO messages to add better routes in the main (Global) Instance in conformance with the routing objectives in that Instance. To achieve this, the Root MAY install an Storing-Mode P-Route along a path down the main Non-Storing Mode DODAG. This enables a loose source routing and reduces the size of the Routing Header, see Appendix A.1.¶
When adding an Storing-Mode P-Route to the main RPL Instance, the Root MUST set the RPLInstanceID field of the P-DAO message (see section 6.4.1. of [RPL]) to the RPLInstanceID of the main DODAG, and MUST NOT use the DODAGID field. A Projected Route provides a longer match to the Target Address than the default route via the Root, so it is preferred.¶
Once the Projected Route is installed, the intermediate nodes listed in the SF-VIO after first one (i.e. The ingress) can be elided from the RH in packets sent along the Segment signaled in the P-DAO. The resulting loose source routing header indicates (one of) the Target(s) as the next entry after the ingress.¶
The Root MAY also use P-DAO messages to install a specific (say, Traffic Engineered) path as a Serial or as a Complex Track, to a particular endpoint that is the Track Egress. In that case, the Root MUST install a Local RPL Instance (see section 5 of [RPL]), and the Local RPLInstanceID is called TrackID.¶
In that case, the TrackID MUST be unique for the Global Unique IPv6 Address (GUA) or Unique-Local Address (ULA) of the Track Ingress that serves as DODAGID for the Track. The Track Ingress owns the namespace of its TrackIDs, so it can pick any unused value to request a new Track with a PDR. The Root is aware of all the active Tracks, so it can also pick any unused value to form Tracks without a PDR. To avoid a collision of the Root and the Track Ingress picking the same value at the same time, it is RECOMMENDED that the Track Ingress starts allocating the ID value of the Local RPLInstanceID (see section 5.1. of [RPL]) used as TrackIDs with the value 0 incrementing, while the Root starts with 63 decrementing.¶
This way, a Track is uniquely identified by the tuple (DODAGID, TrackID) where the TrackID is always represented with the D flag set to 0.¶
The Track Egress Address and the TrackID MUST be signaled in the P-DAO message as shown in Figure 1.¶
A Storing-Mode P-DAO contains an SF-VIO that signals the strict sequence of consecutive nodes to form a segment between a segment ingress and a segment egress (both included). It installs a route of a higher precedence along the segment towards the Targets indicated in the Target Options. The segment is included in a DODAG indicated by the P-DAO Base Object, that may be the one formed by the main RPL Instance, or a Track associated with a local RPL Instance. A Track Egress is signaled as a Target in the P-DAO, and as the last entry is an SF-VIO of a last segment towards that Egress.¶
A Non-Storing-Mode P-DAO signals a strict or loose sequence of nodes between the Track Ingress (excluded) and a Track Egress (included). It installs a source-routed path of a higher precedence within the Track indicated by the P-DAO Base Object, towards the Targets indicated in the Target Options. The source-routed path requires a Source-Routing header which implies an encapsulation to add the SRH to an existing packet.¶
The next entry in the sequence must be either a neighbor of the previous entry, or reachable as a Target via another Projected Route, either Storing or Non-Storing. If it is reachable over a Storing Mode Projected Route, the next entry in the loose sequence is the Target of a previous segment and the ingress of a next segment; the segments are associated with the same Track, which avoids the need of an encapsulation. Conversely, if it is reachable over a Non-Storing Mode Projected Route, the next loose source routed hop of the inner Track is a Target of a previous Track and the ingress of a next Track, which requires a de- and a re-encapsulation.¶
A Serial Track is installed by a single Projected Routes that signals the sequence of consecutive nodes, either in Storing or Non-Storing Mode. If can be a loose Non-Storing Mode Projected Route, in which case the next loose entry must recursively be reached over a Serial Track.¶
A Complex Track can be installed as a collection of Projected Routes with the same DODAGID and Track ID. The Ingress of a Non-Storing Mode Projected Route must be the owner of the DODAGID. The Ingress of a Storing Mode Projected Route must be either the owner of the DODAGID, or the egress of a preceding Storing Mode Projected Route in the same Track. In the latter case, the Targets of the Projected Route must be Targets of the preceding Projected Route to ensure that they are visible from the track Ingress.¶
Profile 1 extends RPL operation in a Non-Storing Mode network with Storing-Mode Projected Routes that install segments along the main DODAG and enable to loose source routing between the Root and the targets.¶
As illustrated in Figure 9, a P-DAO that carries a SF-VIO enables the Root to install a stateful route towards a collection of Targets along a Segment between a Track Ingress and a Track Egress using a projected DAO Message.¶
------+---------
| Internet
|
+-----+
| | Border Router
| | (RPL Root)
+-----+ | ^ |
| | DAO | ACK |
o o o o | | |
o o o o o o o o o | ^ | Projected .
o o o o o o o o o o | | DAO | Route .
o o o o o o o o o | ^ | .
o o o o o o o o v | DAO v .
o o LLN o o o |
o o o o o Loose Source Route Path |
o o o o From Root To Destination v
In order to install the relevant routing state along the Segment , the Root sends a unicast P-DAO message to the Track Egress router of the routing Segment that is being installed. The P-DAO message contains a SF-VIO with the direct sequence of Via Addresses. The SF-VIO follows one or more RTOs indicating the Targets to which the Track leads. The SF-VIO contains a Segment Lifetime for which the state is to be maintained.¶
The Root sends the P-DAO directly to the egress node of the Segment. In that P-DAO, the destination IP address matches the last Via Address in the SF-VIO. This is how the egress recognizes its role. In a similar fashion, the ingress node recognizes its role as it matches first Via Address in the SF-VIO.¶
The Egress node of the Segment is the only node in the path that does not install a route in response to the P-DAO; it is expected to be already able to route to the Target(s) on its own. If one of the Targets is not known, the node MUST answer to the Root with a negative DAO-ACK listing the Target(s) that could not be located (suggested status 10 to be confirmed by IANA).¶
If the egress node can reach all the Targets, then it forwards the P-DAO with unchanged content to its loose predecessor in the Segment as indicated in the list of Via Information options, and recursively the message is propagated unchanged along the sequence of routers indicated in the P-DAO, but in the reverse order, from egress to ingress.¶
The address of the predecessor to be used as destination of the propagated DAO message is found in the Via Address the precedes the one that contain the address of the propagating node, which is used as source of the message.¶
Upon receiving a propagated DAO, all except the Egress Router MUST install a route towards the DAO Target(s) via their successor in the SF-VIO. The router MAY install additional routes towards the VIA Addresses that are the SF-VIO after the next one, if any, but in case of a conflict or a lack of resource, the route(s) to the Target(s) have precedence.¶
If a router cannot reach its predecessor in the SF-VIO, the router MUST answer to the Root with a negative DAO-ACK indicating the successor that is unreachable (suggested status 11 to be confirmed by IANA).¶
The process continues till the P-DAO is propagated to ingress router of the Segment, which answers with a DAO-ACK to the Root. The Root always expects a DAO-ACK, either from the Track Ingress with a positive status or from any node along the segment with a negative status. If the DAO-ACK is not received, the Root may retry the DAO with the same TID, or tear down the route.¶
A Segment Lifetime of 0 in a VIO is used to clean up the state. The P-DAO is forwarded as described above, but the DAO is interpreted as a No-Path DAO and results in cleaning up existing state as opposed to refreshing an existing one or installing a new one.¶
Note that the continuity of the segment may be broken; this happens if the bidirectional connectivity between contiguous hops of the segment is lost. In that case the Root needs to send the projected DAO to one or more intermediate node(s) as opposed to the egress node, indicating a portion of segment that is being replaced or cleaned up. At the extreme, the P-DAO updates only one node, in which case it contains only one VIO.¶
In case of a forwarding error along an Storing-Mode P-Route, the node that fails to forward SHOULD send an ICMP error with a code "Error in Projected Route" to the Root. Failure to do so may result in packet loss and wasted resources along the Projected Route that is broken.¶
As illustrated in Figure 10, a P-DAO that carries an SR-VIO enables the Root to install a source-routed path from a Track Ingress towards a Target along the main DODAG.¶
------+---------
| Internet
|
+-----+
| | Border Router
| | (RPL Root)
+-----+ | P ^ ACK
| Track | DAO |
o o o o Ingress X V | X
o o o o o o o X o X Source
o o o o o o o o X o o X Routed
o o ° o o o o X o X Segment
o o o o o o o o X Track X
o o o o o Egress
o o o o
o o o o
destination
LLN
When forwarding a packet to a destination for which the router determines that routing happens via a Track Target, the router inserts the Source Routing Header in the packet with the final destination at the Track Egress.¶
In order to signal the Segment, the router encapsulates the packet with an IP-in-IP header and a Routing Header as follows:¶
The preferred alternate in a network where 6LoWPAN Header Compression [RFC6282] is used is to leverage "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch" [RFC8025] to compress the RPL artifacts as indicated in [RFC8138].¶
In that case, the source routed header is the exact copy of the (chain of) SRH-6LoRH found in the SR-VIO, also terminating by the Track Egress. The RPI-6LoRH is appended next, followed by an IP-in-IP 6LoRH Header that indicates the Ingress Router in the Encapsulator Address field, see as a similar case Figure 20 of [TURN-ON_RFC8138].¶
In the case of a loose source-routed path, there MUST be either a neighbor that is adjacent to the loose next hop, on which case the packet is forwarded to that neighbor, or another Track to the loose next hop for which this node is Ingress; in the latter case, another encapsulation takes place and the process possibly recurses; otherwise the packet is dropped.¶
In case of a forwarding error along a Source Route path, the node that fails to forward SHOULD send an ICMP error with a code "Error in Source Routing Header" back to the source of the packet, as described in section 11.2.2.3. of [RPL]. Upon this message, the encapsulating node SHOULD stop using the source route path for a period of time and it SHOULD send an ICMP message with a Code "Error in Projected Route" to the Root. Failure to follow these steps may result in packet loss and wasted resources along the source route path that is broken.¶
This draft leverages the RPL Forwarding model follows:¶
In the data packets, the Track DODAGID and the TrackID MUST be respectively signaled as the IPv6 Source Address and the RPLInstanceID field of the RPI that MUST be placed in the outer chain of IPv6 Headers.¶
The RPI carries a local RPLInstanceID called the TrackID, which, in association with the DODAGID, indicates the Track along which the packet is forwarded.¶
The D flag in the RPLInstanceID MUST be set to 0 to indicate that the source address in the IPv6 header is set ot the DODAGID, more in Section 7.4.¶
This draft conforms the principles of [USEofRPLinfo] with regards to packet forwarding and encapsulation along a Track.¶
A packet that is being routed over the RPL Instance associated to a first Non-Storing Mode Track MAY be placed (encapsulated) in a second Track to cover one loose hop of the first Track. On the other hand, a Storing Mode Track must be strict and a packet that it placed in a Storing Mode Track MUST follow that Track till the Track Egress.¶
When a Track Egress extracts a packet from a Track (decapsulates the packet), the Destination of the inner packet MUST be either this node or a direct neighbor, or a Target of another Segment of the same Track for which this node is ingress, otherwise the packet MUST be dropped.¶
All properties of a Track operations are inherited form the main RPL Instance that is used to install the Track. For instance, the use of compression per [RFC8138] is determined by whether it is used in the main instance, e.g., by setting the "T" flag [TURN-ON_RFC8138] in the RPL configuration option.¶
This document provides a set of tools that may or may not be needed by an implementation depending on the type of application it serves. This sections described profiles that can be implemented separately and can be used to discriminate what an implementation can and cannot do.¶
The remainder of the section provides an example of how a Track can be signaled¶
===> F
A ===> B ===> C ===> D===> E <
===> G
A is Track ingress, E is track Egress. C is stitching point. F and G are E's neighbors, "external" to the Track, and reachable from A over the Track A->E.¶
In a general manner we want:¶
P-DAO 3 being loose, it can only be non-storing. Note that since the Root is always the ingress of a Track, and all SR-VIOs are now Track, the Root being signaled in the DAO base object can now be elided in the VIA list in SR-VIO. This enables the construction by the main root of the RFC 8138 optimized SRH-6LoRH in the SR-VIO, to be placed as is in the packet by the Root.¶
A==>B==>C and C==>D==>E are segments of a same Track. Note that the storing mode signaling imposes strict continuity in a segment. One benefit of strict routing is that loops are avoided along the Track.¶
Storing-Mode P-DAO 1 and 2 are sent to E and C, as follows:¶
| Field | P-DAO 1 to E | P-DAO 2 to C |
|---|---|---|
| Mode | Storing | Storing |
| Track Ingress | A | A |
| TrackID | (A, 129) | (A, 129) |
| VIO | C, D, E | A, B, C |
| Targets | E, F, G | E, F, G |
As a result the RIBs are set as follows:¶
| Node | Destination | Origin | Next Hop(s) | TrackID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | F, G | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| D | E | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | F, G | P-DAO 1 | E | (A, 129) |
| C | D | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | E, F, G | P-DAO 1 | D | (A, 129) |
| B | C | P-DAO 2 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | E, F, G | P-DAO 2 | C | (A, 129) |
| A | B | P-DAO 2 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| A | E, F, G | P-DAO 2 | B | (A, 129) |
E recognizes that it is the Track Egress because it is both a Target and a Segment Endpoint.¶
Packets originated by A to E, F, or G, do not require an encapsulation. In any fashion, the outer headers of the packets that are forwarded along the Track have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | A | E, F or G | (A, 129) |
| Inner | X != A | E, F or G | N/A |
As an example, say that A has a packet for F. Using the RIB above:¶
Storing-Mode P-DAO 1 and 2, and Non-Storing-Mode P-DAO 3, are sent to E, C and A, respectively, as follows:¶
| P-DAO 1 to E | P-DAO 2 to C | P-DAO 3 to A | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | Storing | Storing | Non-Storing |
| Track Ingress | A | A | A |
| TrackID | (A, 129) | (A, 129) | (A, 129) |
| VIO | C, D, E | A, B, C | E |
| Targets | E | E | F, G |
As a result the RIBs are set as follows:¶
| Node | Destination | Origin | Next Hop(s) | TrackID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | F, G | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| D | E | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| C | D | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | E | P-DAO 1 | D | (A, 129) |
| B | C | P-DAO 2 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | E | P-DAO 2 | C | (A, 129) |
| A | B | P-DAO 2 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| A | E | P-DAO 2 | B | (A, 129) |
| A | F, G | P-DAO 3 | E | (A, 129) |
Packets from A to E do not require an encapsulation. In any fashion, the outer headers of the packets that are forwarded along the Track have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | A | E | (A, 129) |
| Inner | X | E (X != A), F or G | N/A |
As an example, say that A has a packet for F. Using the RIB above:¶
Storing-Mode P-DAO 1 and 2, and Non-Storing-Mode P-DAO 3, are sent to E, B and A, respectively, as follows:¶
| P-DAO 1 to E | P-DAO 2 to B | P-DAO 3 to A | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | Storing | Storing | Non-Storing |
| Track Ingress | A | A | A |
| TrackID | (A, 129) | (A, 129) | (A, 129) |
| VIO | C, D, E | A, B | C, E |
| Targets | E | B, C | F, G |
As a result the RIBs are set as follows:¶
| Node | Destination | Origin | Next Hop(s) | TrackID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | F, G | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| D | E | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| C | D | P-DAO 1 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | E | P-DAO 1 | D | (A, 129) |
| B | C | P-DAO 2 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| A | B | P-DAO 2 | Neighbor | (A, 129) |
| " | C | P-DAO 2 | B | (A, 129) |
| " | E, F, G | P-DAO 3 | C, E | (A, 129) |
Packets from A to E do not require an encapsulation, but carry a SRH via C. In any fashion, the outer headers of the packets that are forwarded along the Track have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | A | C till C then E | (A, 129) |
| Inner | X | E (X != A), F or G | N/A |
As an example, say that A has a packet for F. Using the RIB above:¶
A==>B==>C and C==>D==>E are Tracks expressed as non-storing P-DAOs.¶
Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 1 and 2 are sent to C and A respectively, as follows:¶
| P-DAO 1 to C | P-DAO 2 to A | |
|---|---|---|
| Mode | Non-Storing | Non-Storing |
| Track Ingress | C | A |
| TrackID | (C, 131) | (A, 129) |
| VIO | D, E | B, C |
| Targets | F, G | E, F, G |
As a result the RIBs are set as follows:¶
| Node | Destination | Origin | Next Hop(s) | TrackID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | F, G | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| D | E | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| C | D | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| " | E, F, G | P-DAO 1 | D, E | (C, 131) |
| B | C | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| A | B | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| " | C, E, F, G | P-DAO 2 | B, C | (A, 129) |
Packets from A to E, F and G do not require an encapsulation, though it is preferred that A encapsulates and C decapsulates. Either way, they carry a SRH via B and C, and C needs to encapsulate to E, F, or G to add an SRH via D and E. The encapsulating headers of packets that are forwarded along the Track between C and E have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | C | D till D then E | (C, 131) |
| Inner | X | E, F, or G | N/A |
As an example, say that A has a packet for F. Using the RIB above:¶
Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 1 is sent to C and Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 2 and 3 are sent A, as follows:¶
| P-DAO 1 to C | P-DAO 2 to A | P-DAO 3 to A | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | Non-Storing | Non-Storing | Non-Storing |
| Track Ingress | C | A | A |
| TrackID | (C, 131) | (A, 129) | (A, 141) |
| VIO | D, E | B, C | E |
| Targets | E | E | F, G |
As a result the RIBs are set as follows:¶
| Node | Destination | Origin | Next Hop(s) | TrackID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | F, G | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| D | E | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| C | D | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| " | E | P-DAO 1 | D, E | (C, 131) |
| B | C | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| A | B | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| " | C, E | P-DAO 2 | B, C | (A, 129) |
| " | F, G | P-DAO 3 | E | (A, 141) |
The encapsulating headers of packets that are forwarded along the Track between C and E have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | C | D till D then E | (C, 131) |
| Middle | A | E | (A, 141) |
| Inner | X | E, F or G | N/A |
As an example, say that A has a packet for F. Using the RIB above:¶
Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 1 is sent to C and Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 2 and 3 are sent A, as follows:¶
| P-DAO 1 to C | P-DAO 2 to A | P-DAO 3 to A | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | Non-Storing | Non-Storing | Non-Storing |
| Track Ingress | C | A | A |
| TrackID | (C, 131) | (A, 129) | (A, 141) |
| VIO | D, E | B | C, E |
| Targets | C | F, G |
As a result the RIBs are set as follows:¶
| Node | Destination | Origin | Next Hop(s) | TrackID |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | F, G | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| D | E | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| C | D | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| " | E | P-DAO 1 | D, E | (C, 131) |
| B | C | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| A | B | ND | Neighbor | Any |
| " | C | P-DAO 2 | B, C | (A, 129) |
| " | E, F, G | P-DAO 3 | C, E | (A, 141) |
The encapsulating headers of packets that are forwarded along the Track between A and B have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | A | B till D then E | (A, 129) |
| Middle | A | C | (A, 141) |
| Inner | X | E, F or G | N/A |
The encapsulating headers of packets that are forwarded along the Track between B and C have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | A | C | (A, 141) |
| Inner | X | E, F or G | N/A |
The encapsulating headers of packets that are forwarded along the Track between C and E have the following settings:¶
| Header | IPv6 Source Addr. | IPv6 Dest. Addr. | TrackID in RPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outer | C | D till D then E | (C, 131) |
| Middle | A | E | (A, 141) |
| Inner | X | E, F or G | N/A |
As an example, say that A has a packet for F. Using the RIB above:¶
It is worth noting that with [RPL], every node in the LLN is RPL-aware and can inject any RPL-based attack in the network. This draft uses messages that are already present in RPL [RPL] with optional secured versions. The same secured versions may be used with this draft, and whatever security is deployed for a given network also applies to the flows in this draft.¶
The LLN nodes depend on the 6LBR and the RPL participants for their operation. A trust model must be put in place to ensure that the right devices are acting in these roles, so as to avoid threats such as black-holing, (see [RFC7416] section 7). This trust model could be at a minimum based on a Layer-2 Secure joining and the Link-Layer security. This is a generic 6LoWPAN requirement, see Req5.1 in Appendix B.5 of [RFC8505].¶
In a general manner, the Security Considerations in [RPL], and [RFC7416] apply to this specification as well. The Link-Layer security is needed in particular to prevent Denial-Of-Service attacks whereby a rogue router creates a high churn in the RPL network by constantly injected forged P-DAO messages and using up all the available storage in the attacked routers.¶
Additionally, the trust model could include a role validation (e.g., using a role-based authorization) to ensure that the node that claims to be a RPL Root is entitled to do so. That trust should propagate from egress to ingress in the case of a Storing Mode P-DAO.¶
This document updates the IANA registry titled "Elective 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type" that was created for [RFC8138] and assigns the following value:¶
| Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | P-RPI-6LoRH | This document |
This document updates the IANA registry titled "Critical 6LoWPAN Routing Header Type" that was created for [RFC8138] and assigns the following value:¶
| Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | P-RPI-6LoRH | This document |
IANA is required to create a subregistry for the 8-bit RPL Option Flags field, as detailed in Figure 2, under the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" registry. The bits are indexed from 0 (leftmost) to 7. Each bit is tracked with the following qualities:¶
Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. The initial allocation is as indicated in Table 26:¶
| Bit number | Indication When Set | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Down 'O' | [RFC6553] |
| 1 | Rank-Error (R) | [RFC6553] |
| 2 | Forwarding-Error (F) | [RFC6553] |
| 3 | Projected-Route (P) | This document |
This document extends the IANA Subregistry created by RFC 6550 for RPL Control Codes as indicated in Table 24:¶
| Code | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0x09 | Projected DAO Request (PDR) | This document |
| 0x0A | PDR-ACK | This document |
This document extends the IANA Subregistry created by RFC 6550 for RPL Control Message Options as indicated in Table 25:¶
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0x0B | Stateful VIO (SF-VIO) | This document |
| 0x0C | Source-Routed VIO (SR-VIO) | This document |
| 0x0D | Sibling Information option | This document |
IANA is required to create a registry for the 8-bit Projected DAO Request (PDR) Flags field. Each bit is tracked with the following qualities:¶
Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. The initial allocation is as indicated in Table 26:¶
| Bit number | Capability description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | PDR-ACK request (K) | This document |
| 1 | Requested path should be redundant (R) | This document |
IANA is required to create an subregistry for the 8-bit PDR-ACK Flags field. Each bit is tracked with the following qualities:¶
Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. No bit is currently defined for the PDR-ACK Flags.¶
IANA is requested to create a Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Acceptance Status values.¶
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
| 0 | Unqualified acceptance | This document |
IANA is requested to create a Subregistry for the PDR-ACK Rejection Status values.¶
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
| 0 | Unqualified rejection | This document |
IANA is requested to create a Subregistry for the 5-bit Via Information Options (Via Information Option) Flags field. Each bit is tracked with the following qualities:¶
Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. No bit is currently defined for the Via Information Options (Via Information Option) Flags.¶
IANA is required to create a registry for the 5-bit Sibling Information Option (SIO) Flags field. Each bit is tracked with the following qualities:¶
Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. The initial allocation is as indicated in Table 29:¶
| Bit number | Capability description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Connectivity is bidirectional (B) | This document |
This document modifies the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Flags" registry initially created in Section 20.11 of [RPL] .¶
Section 3.1 also defines one new entry in the Registry as follows:¶
| Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference |
| 2 (suggested) | Projected DAO (P) | THIS RFC |
In some cases RPL will return an ICMPv6 error message when a message cannot be forwarded along a Projected Route. This ICMPv6 error message is "Error in Projected Route".¶
IANA has defined an ICMPv6 "Code" Fields Registry for ICMPv6 Message Types. ICMPv6 Message Type 1 describes "Destination Unreachable" codes. This specification requires that a new code is allocated from the ICMPv6 Code Fields Registry for ICMPv6 Message Type 1, for "Error in Projected Route", with a suggested code value of 8, to be confirmed by IANA.¶
The authors wish to acknowledge JP Vasseur, Remy Liubing, James Pylakutty and Patrick Wetterwald for their contributions to the ideas developed here.¶
A RPL implementation operating in a very constrained LLN typically uses the Non-Storing Mode of Operation as represented in Figure 12. In that mode, a RPL node indicates a parent-child relationship to the Root, using a Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) that is unicast from the node directly to the Root, and the Root typically builds a source routed path to a destination down the DODAG by recursively concatenating this information.¶
------+---------
| Internet
|
+-----+
| | Border Router
| | (RPL Root)
+-----+ ^ | |
| | DAO | ACK |
o o o o | | | Strict
o o o o o o o o o | | | Source
o o o o o o o o o o | | | Route
o o o o o o o o o | | |
o o o o o o o o | v v
o o o o
LLN
Based on the parent-children relationships expressed in the non-storing DAO messages,the Root possesses topological information about the whole network, though this information is limited to the structure of the DODAG for which it is the destination. A packet that is generated within the domain will always reach the Root, which can then apply a source routing information to reach the destination if the destination is also in the DODAG. Similarly, a packet coming from the outside of the domain for a destination that is expected to be in a RPL domain reaches the Root.¶
It results that the Root, or then some associated centralized computation engine such as a PCE, can determine the amount of packets that reach a destination in the RPL domain, and thus the amount of energy and bandwidth that is wasted for transmission, between itself and the destination, as well as the risk of fragmentation, any potential delays because of a paths longer than necessary (shorter paths exist that would not traverse the Root).¶
As a network gets deep, the size of the source routing header that the Root must add to all the downward packets becomes an issue for nodes that are many hops away. In some use cases, a RPL network forms long lines and a limited amount of well-Targeted routing state would allow to make the source routing operation loose as opposed to strict, and save packet size. Limiting the packet size is directly beneficial to the energy budget, but, mostly, it reduces the chances of frame loss and/or packet fragmentation, which is highly detrimental to the LLN operation. Because the capability to store a routing state in every node is limited, the decision of which route is installed where can only be optimized with a global knowledge of the system, a knowledge that the Root or an associated PCE may possess by means that are outside of the scope of this specification.¶
This specification enables to store a Storing Mode state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the excursion of the source route headers in deep networks. Once a P-DAO exchange has taken place for a given Target, if the Root operates in non Storing Mode, then it may elide the sequence of routers that is installed in the network from its source route headers to destination that are reachable via that Target, and the source route headers effectively become loose.¶
RPL is optimized for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P), whereby routes are always installed along the RPL DODAG respectively from and towards the DODAG Root. Transversal Peer to Peer (P2P) routes in a RPL network will generally suffer from some elongated (stretched) path versus the best possible path, since routing between 2 nodes always happens via a common parent, as illustrated in Figure 13:¶
------+---------
| Internet
|
+-----+
| | Border Router
| | (RPL Root)
+-----+
X
^ v o o
^ o o v o o o o o
^ o o o v o o o o o
^ o o v o o o o o
S o o o D o o o
o o o o
LLN
It results that it is often beneficial to enable transversal P2P routes, either if the RPL route presents a stretch from shortest path, or if the new route is engineered with a different objective, and that it is even more critical in Non-Storing Mode than it is in Storing Mode, because the routing stretch is wider. For that reason, earlier work at the IETF introduced the "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low Power and Lossy Networks" [RFC6997], which specifies a distributed method for establishing optimized P2P routes. This draft proposes an alternate based on a centralized route computation.¶
------+---------
| Internet
|
+-----+
| | Border Router
| | (RPL 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
S>>A>>>B>>C>>>D o o o
o o o o
LLN
This specification enables to store source-routed or Storing Mode state in intermediate routers, which enables to limit the stretch of a P2P route and maintain the characteristics within a given SLA. An example of service using this mechanism oculd be a control loop that would be installed in a network that uses classical RPL for asynchronous data collection. In that case, the P2P path may be installed in a different RPL Instance, with a different objective function.¶