diff --git a/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.txt b/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.txt index e106fd9..10455bc 100644 --- a/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.txt +++ b/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.txt @@ -5,14 +5,14 @@ ROLL P. Thubert, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track R.A. Jadhav -Expires: 10 June 2023 Huawei Tech +Expires: 7 July 2023 Huawei Tech M. Richardson Sandelman - 7 December 2022 + 3 January 2023 Root initiated routing state in RPL - draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-30 + draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-31 Abstract @@ -40,11 +40,11 @@ Status of This Memo 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 10 June 2023. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 July 2023. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2023 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 @@ -53,9 +53,9 @@ Copyright Notice -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 1] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 1] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights @@ -109,9 +109,9 @@ Table of Contents -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 2] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 2] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 5.1. New P-DAO Request Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 @@ -165,9 +165,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 3] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 3] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 1. Introduction @@ -215,15 +215,15 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 P-Routes can be used as stand-alone Segments meant to reduce the size of the source routing headers, leveraging loose source routing operations down the main RPL DODAG. P-Routes can also be combined - with other P-Routes to form a Track signaled as a local RPL Instance, - and that provides underlay shortcuts in an existing main Instance, - each with its own RIB. + with other P-Routes to form a Track signaled as a RPL Instance, and + that provides underlay shortcuts in an existing main Instance, each + with its own RIB. -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 4] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 4] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 2. Terminology @@ -277,9 +277,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 5] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 5] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 2.3. Glossary @@ -333,9 +333,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 6] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 6] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 2.4.3. Path @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 7] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 7] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 2.4.5. Track @@ -445,29 +445,31 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 8] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 8] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 2.4.5.1. TrackID - A RPL Local InstanceID that identifies a Track using the namespace - owned by the Track Ingress. The TrackID is associated with the IPv6 - Address of the Track Ingress that is used as DODAGID, and together - they form a unique identification of the Track (see the definition of - DODAGID in section 2 of [RPL]. + A RPL InstanceID (typically of a Local Instance) that identifies a + Track using the namespace owned by the Track Ingress. For Local + Instances, the TrackID is associated with the IPv6 Address of the + Track Ingress that is used as DODAGID, and together they form a + unique identification of the Track (see the definition of DODAGID in + section 2 of [RPL]. 2.4.5.2. Namespace The term namespace is used to refer to the scope of the TrackID. The - TrackID is locally significant within its namespace. The namespace - is identified by the DODAGID for the Track. The tuple (DODAGID, - TrackID) is globally unique. + TrackID is locally significant within its namespace. For Local + Instances, the namespace is identified by the DODAGID for the Track + and the tuple (DODAGID, TrackID) is globally unique. For Global + Instances, the namespace is the whole RPL domain. 2.4.5.3. Serial Track - A Track that has only one path. + A Track that has only one path from Ingress to Egress. 2.4.5.4. Complex Track @@ -491,7 +493,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 The concept of Lane is defined in the RAW Architecture" [RAW-ARCHI] as an end-to-end East-West serial path. With this specification, a Lane is installed by the Root of the main DODAG using a Non-Storing - Mode P-DAO message. + Mode P-DAO message, e.g., I --> F --> E in Figure 1. As the Non-Storing Mode Via Information option (NSM-VIO) can only signal sequences of nodes, it takes one Non-Storing Mode P-DAO @@ -499,11 +501,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 - - -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 9] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 9] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Each NSM-VIO for the same TrackId but with a different Segment ID @@ -512,12 +512,12 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 2.4.5.8. Segment A serial path formed by a strict sequence of nodes, along which a - P-Route is installed. With this specification, a Segment is - typically installed by the Root of the main DODAG using Storing Mode - P-DAO messages. A Segment is used as the topological edge of a Track - joining the loose steps along the Lanes that form the structure of a - complex Track. The same Segment may be leveraged by more than one - Lane where the Lanes overlap. + P-Route is installed, e.g., I ==> A ==> B ==> C in Figure 1. With + this specification, a Segment is typically installed by the Root of + the main DODAG using Storing Mode P-DAO messages. A Segment is used + as the topological edge of a Track joining the loose steps along the + Lanes that form the structure of a complex Track. The same Segment + may be leveraged by more than one Lane where the Lanes overlap. Since this specification builds only DODAGs, all Segments are oriented from Ingress (East) to Egress (West), as opposed to the @@ -557,9 +557,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 10] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 10] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 3.1. RPL Applicability @@ -613,9 +613,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 11] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 11] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 But stretch in P2P routing is counter-productive to both reliability @@ -669,9 +669,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 12] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 12] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 In the simplest mode of this specification, Storing-Mode P-Routes can @@ -725,9 +725,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 13] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 13] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 3.3.1. Loose Source Routing @@ -781,9 +781,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 14] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 14] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 and reduce the overhead of routing information in packets. Because @@ -837,9 +837,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 15] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 15] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 ------+--------- @@ -893,9 +893,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 16] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 16] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +-----+ @@ -949,9 +949,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 17] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 17] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 A Serial Track provides only one path between Ingress and Egress. It @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 3.4.2. Tracks and RPL Instances Section 5.1. of [RPL] describes the RPL Instance and its encoding. - There can be up to 128 global RPL Instances, for which there can be + There can be up to 128 Global RPL Instances, for which there can be one or more DODAGs, and there can be 64 local RPL Instances, with a namespace that is indexed by a DODAGID, where the DODAGID is a Unique Local Address (ULA) or a Global Unicast Address (GUA) of the Root of @@ -974,7 +974,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 RPLInstanceID, as shown in Figure 5. By extension, this specification expresses the value of the RPLInstanceID as a single integer between 128 and 191, representing both the Local - RPLInstanceID in 0..63 and Bit 0 set. + RPLInstanceID in 0..63 in the rightmost bits and Bit 0 set. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 associated with a Local RPL Instance wherein the RPLInstanceID is used as the TrackID; the encapsulating source IP address and RPI Instance are set to the Track Ingress IP address and local - RPLInstanceID, respectively (more in Section 6.3). + RPLInstanceID, respectively, more in Section 6.3. A Track Lane may also be used as an alternative to a Segment in the main DODAG, causing an extra encapsulation to signal a source-routed @@ -1005,9 +1005,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 18] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 18] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 3.5. Serial Track Signaling @@ -1061,9 +1061,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 19] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 19] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 * Targets are E, F, and G @@ -1117,9 +1117,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 20] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 20] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +====================+==============+==============+ @@ -1173,9 +1173,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 21] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 21] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Packets originating at A going to F or G do not require encapsulation @@ -1229,9 +1229,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 22] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 22] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +====================+==============+==============+==============+ @@ -1285,9 +1285,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 23] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 23] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Packets from A to E do not require an encapsulation. The outer @@ -1341,9 +1341,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 24] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 24] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +====================+==============+==============+==============+ @@ -1397,9 +1397,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 25] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 25] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Packets originated at A to E do not require an encapsulation, but @@ -1453,9 +1453,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 26] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 26] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +====================+==============+==============+ @@ -1509,9 +1509,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 27] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 27] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +========+===================+===================+================+ @@ -1565,9 +1565,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 28] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 28] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +====================+==============+==============+==============+ @@ -1621,9 +1621,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 29] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 29] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +========+===================+===================+================+ @@ -1671,15 +1671,15 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 * P-DAO 3 signals F and G via the A-->C-->E-to-F,G Track Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 1 is sent to C and Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 2 - and 3 are sent A, as follows: + and 3 are sent to A, as follows: -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 30] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 30] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +====================+==============+==============+==============+ @@ -1733,9 +1733,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 31] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 31] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +========+===================+===================+================+ @@ -1789,9 +1789,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 32] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 32] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 * From P-DAO 2: A encapsulates the packet with destination of C in @@ -1845,9 +1845,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 33] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 33] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 CPF CPF CPF CPF @@ -1894,16 +1894,16 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 Note that while this specification enables building both Segments inside a Lane (aka East-West), such as Segment 2 above which is within Lane 1, and Inter-Lane Segments (aka North-South), such as - Segment 2 above which joins Lane 1 and Lane 2, it does not signal to + Segment 5 above which joins Lane 1 and Lane 2, it does not signal to the Ingress which Inter-Lane Segments are available, so the use of North-South Segments and associated PAREO functions is curently limited. The only possibility available at this time is to define -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 34] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 34] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 overlapping Lanes as illustrated in Figure 7, with Lane 3 that is @@ -1957,9 +1957,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 35] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 35] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 One possible mapping between DetNet and this specification is to @@ -2013,9 +2013,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 36] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 36] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The RAW Architecture defines a dataplane extension of the PCE called @@ -2069,9 +2069,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 37] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 37] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The P-DAO Request (PDR) is a new message detailed in Section 5.1. As @@ -2088,8 +2088,8 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 DODAGID and authoritative for the associated namespace from which the TrackID is selected. In the context of this specification, the installed route appears as a more specific route to the Track - Targets, and the Track Ingress routes the packets towards the Targets - via the Track using the longest match as usual. + Targets, and the Track Ingress forwards the packets towards the + Targets via the Track using the longest match as normal. To ensure that the PDR and P-DAO messages can flow at most times, it is RECOMMENDED that the nodes involved in a Track maintain multiple @@ -2125,9 +2125,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 38] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 38] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The 'P' flag is encoded in bit position 2 (to be confirmed by IANA) @@ -2181,9 +2181,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 39] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 39] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 message signals to the Root that a given parent can be used to reach @@ -2237,9 +2237,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 40] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 40] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The D flag is set to one to signal that the DODAGID field is present. @@ -2293,9 +2293,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 41] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 41] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 4.1.5. P-DAO Request @@ -2349,9 +2349,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 42] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 42] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 This specification Amends the specification to define a new flag @@ -2405,9 +2405,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 43] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 43] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 0 1 2 3 @@ -2461,9 +2461,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 44] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 44] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 When the [RFC8138] compression is used, the Root of the main DODAG @@ -2517,9 +2517,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 45] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 45] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 5.1. New P-DAO Request Control Message @@ -2573,9 +2573,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 46] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 46] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 R: The 'R' flag is set to request a Complex Track for redundancy. @@ -2629,9 +2629,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 47] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 47] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 PDRSequence: 8-bit wrapping sequence number. It is incremented at @@ -2685,9 +2685,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 48] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 48] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 In case of an NSM-VIO and if [RFC8138] is in use in the main DODAG, @@ -2695,12 +2695,12 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 SRH-6LoRH Types would make the VIO globally shorter; this means that more than one SRH-6LoRH may be present. - The format of the Via Information Options is as follows: + The format of the Via Information Option 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 | P-RouteID | + | Option Type | Option Length | Flags | P-RouteID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Segm. Sequence | Seg. Lifetime | SRH-6LoRH head | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -2733,17 +2733,17 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 variable, depending on the number of Via Addresses and the compression applied. - P-RouteID: 8-bit field that identifies a component of a Track or the - - + Flags: 8-bit field. No flag is defined in this specification. The + field MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver. + P-RouteID: 8-bit field that identifies a component of a Track or the -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 49] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 49] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 main DODAG as indicated by the TrackID field. The value of 0 is @@ -2797,9 +2797,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 50] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 50] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 In the case of an SM-VIO, the list indicates a sequential (strict) @@ -2853,9 +2853,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 51] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 51] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 0 1 2 3 @@ -2909,17 +2909,18 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 52] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 52] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Opaque: MAY be used to carry information that the node and the Root understand, e.g., a particular representation of the Link properties such as a proprietary Link Quality Information for - packets received from the sibling. An industrial Alliance that - uses RPL for a particular use / environment MAY redefine the use - of this field to fit its needs. + packets received from the sibling. In some scenarios such as the + case of an Industrial Alliances that uses RPL for a particular use + / environment, this field MAY be redefined to fit the needs of + that case. Compression Type: 3-bit unsigned integer. This is the SRH-6LoRH Type as defined in figure 7 in section 5.1 of [RFC8138] that @@ -2964,10 +2965,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 - -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 53] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 53] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Though fragmentation is possible in a 6LoWPAN LLN, e.g., using @@ -3021,9 +3021,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 54] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 54] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 6.3. Identifying a Track @@ -3040,7 +3040,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 Instance. To achieve this, the main Root MAY install a Segment along a path - down the main DODAG, which is operated in Non-Storing Mode This + down the main DODAG, which is operated in Non-Storing Mode. This enables a loose source routing and reduces the size of the Routing Header, see Section 3.3.1. The main Root MAY also install a Track Lane across the main DODAG to complement the routing topology. @@ -3055,7 +3055,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 * The main Root MAY also use P-DAO messages to install a Track as an independent routing topology (say, Traffic Engineered) to achieve particular routing characteristics from an Ingress to Egress - Endpoints. To achieve this, the main Root MUST set up a local RPL + Endpoints. To achieve this, the main Root MUST set up a Local RPL Instance (see section 5 of [RPL]), and the Local RPLInstanceID serves as the TrackID. The TrackID MUST be unique for the IPv6 ULA or GUA of the Track Ingress that serves as DODAGID for the @@ -3077,9 +3077,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 55] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 55] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The Track Ingress is the Root of the DODAG ID formed by the local @@ -3133,9 +3133,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 56] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 56] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 * There SHOULD NOT be 2 different Tracks leading to the same Target @@ -3189,9 +3189,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 57] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 57] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 on the installed path and forwarded in the reverse direction, @@ -3245,9 +3245,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 58] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 58] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 ------+--------- @@ -3259,10 +3259,10 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +-----+ | ^ | | | 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 o o Ingress o o o | ^ | Projected . + o o o o o \\ o o o | | DAO | Route . + o o o o \\ o o o o | ^ | . + o o o o o Egress o o v | DAO v . o o LLN o o o | o o o o o Loose Source Route Path | o o o o v @@ -3301,9 +3301,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 59] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 59] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The address of the predecessor to be used as destination of the @@ -3357,9 +3357,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 60] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 60] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 ------+--------- @@ -3413,9 +3413,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 61] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 61] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 6.5. Tearing Down a P-Route @@ -3469,9 +3469,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 62] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 62] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 6.6.1. Maintaining a Track Segment @@ -3525,9 +3525,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 63] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 63] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Packets that are in flight over the old version of the Track Lane @@ -3581,9 +3581,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 64] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 64] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The RPI carries a local RPLInstanceID called the TrackID, which, @@ -3637,9 +3637,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 65] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 65] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 1. the previous next hop has a common Neighbor that can relay to @@ -3693,9 +3693,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 66] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 66] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The portion of the invoking packet that is sent back in the ICMP @@ -3749,9 +3749,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 67] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 67] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Figure 21: The IP-in-IP 6LoRH Header @@ -3805,9 +3805,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 68] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 68] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 * The downward routes are updated with unicast messages to the Root, @@ -3861,9 +3861,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 69] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 69] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 The DAO message MUST be formed as follows: @@ -3917,9 +3917,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 70] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 70] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 * The Root has a complete topological information and statistical @@ -3973,9 +3973,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 71] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 71] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Profiles 0 to 2 operate in the main Instance and do not require the @@ -4029,9 +4029,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 72] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 72] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 Profile 4 Profile 4 extends Profile 2 with Strict Source-Routing @@ -4085,9 +4085,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 73] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 73] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 This specification defines the 'D' flag in the RPL DODAG @@ -4141,9 +4141,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 74] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 74] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 11. IANA Considerations @@ -4197,9 +4197,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 75] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 75] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +===============+=============+===========+ @@ -4253,9 +4253,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 76] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 76] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +==================+=============================+===========+ @@ -4309,9 +4309,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 77] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 77] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +============+========================================+===========+ @@ -4365,9 +4365,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 78] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 78] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +-------+------------------------+-----------+ @@ -4421,9 +4421,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 79] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 79] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 * Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) @@ -4433,7 +4433,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 * Reference Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. No bit is - currently assigned for the PDR-ACK Flags. + currently assigned for the VIO Flags, more in Section 5.3. 11.12. SubRegistry for the Sibling Information Option Flags @@ -4450,7 +4450,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 * Reference Registration procedure is "Standards Action" [RFC8126]. The initial - allocation is as indicated in Table 30: + allocation is as indicated in Table 30, more in Figure 17: +===============+========================+===========+ | Bit number | Capability description | Reference | @@ -4468,7 +4468,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 IANA is requested to update the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Flags" registry created in Section 20.11 of [RPL] under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" as - indicated in Table 31: + indicated in Table 31, more in Section 4.1.1: @@ -4477,9 +4477,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 80] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 80] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +---------------+------------------------+-----------+ @@ -4496,7 +4496,7 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 IANA is requested to update the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Acknowledgment Flags" registry created in Section 20.12 of [RPL] under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy - Networks (RPL)" as indicated in Table 32: + Networks (RPL)" as indicated in Table 32, more in Section 4.1.2: +---------------+------------------------+-----------+ | Bit Number | Capability Description | Reference | @@ -4533,9 +4533,9 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 81] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 81] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 +---------------+-------------------------+-----------+ @@ -4570,198 +4570,205 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 13. Normative References [INT-ARCHI] - Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, + Braden, R., Ed. and RFC Publisher, "Requirements for + Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, . - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + [RFC2119] Bradner, S. and RFC Publisher, "Key words for use in RFCs + to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . - [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet - Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet - Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, + [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., Gupta, M., Ed., and RFC Publisher, + "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the + Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, . -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 82] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 82] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 - [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path - Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, + [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., Ash, J., and RFC Publisher, "A + Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", + RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, . - [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 - Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, + [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed., Thubert, P., and RFC Publisher, "Compression + Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based + Networks", RFC 6282, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, . [RPL] 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, + JP., Alexander, R., and RFC Publisher, "RPL: IPv6 Routing + Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, . - [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- - Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL - Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, + [RFC6553] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., and RFC Publisher, "The Routing + Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for + Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", + RFC 6553, DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, . - [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 - Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol - for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, + [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., Manral, V., and RFC + Publisher, "An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with + the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks + (RPL)", RFC 6554, DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, . - [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, + [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., Narten, T., and RFC Publisher, + "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in + RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . - [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, - "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network - (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, - April 2017, . + [RFC8138] Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., Cragie, R., + and RFC Publisher, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal + Area Network (6LoWPAN) Routing Header", RFC 8138, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8138, April 2017, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B. and RFC Publisher, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs + Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, + . + - [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC - 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, - May 2017, . - [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., - Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header - (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, - . -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 83] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 83] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 - [RFC9008] Robles, M.I., Richardson, M., and P. Thubert, "Using RPI - Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes, and IPv6- - in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane", RFC 9008, - DOI 10.17487/RFC9008, April 2021, + [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., + Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and RFC Publisher, "IPv6 + Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, + . + + [RFC9008] Robles, M.I., Richardson, M., Thubert, P., and RFC + Publisher, "Using RPI Option Type, Routing Header for + Source Routes, and IPv6-in-IPv6 Encapsulation in the RPL + Data Plane", RFC 9008, DOI 10.17487/RFC9008, April 2021, . - [RFC9030] Thubert, P., Ed., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the Time- - Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)", - RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May 2021, - . + [RFC9030] Thubert, P., Ed. and RFC Publisher, "An Architecture for + IPv6 over the Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Mode of IEEE + 802.15.4 (6TiSCH)", RFC 9030, DOI 10.17487/RFC9030, May + 2021, . [RAW-ARCHI] Thubert, P., "Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- - ietf-raw-architecture-10, 14 November 2022, + ietf-raw-architecture-11, 7 December 2022, . + architecture-11.txt>. 14. Informative References - [6LoWPAN] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, - "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 - Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, - . + [6LoWPAN] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., Culler, D., and + RFC Publisher, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE + 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, + September 2007, . - [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation - Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, + [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Le Roux, JL., Ed., and RFC Publisher, + "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol + (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . - [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and - J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes - in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, + [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., + Martocci, J., and RFC Publisher, "Reactive Discovery of + Point-to-Point Routes in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", + RFC 6997, DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, . - [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and - Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January - 2014, . - - [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., - and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for - the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks - (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, - . + [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP. and RFC Publisher, "Terms Used in Routing for + Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 2014, + . - -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 84] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 84] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 + + [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., + Richardson, M., Ed., and RFC Publisher, "A Security Threat + Analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy + Networks (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January + 2015, . - [RFC8025] Thubert, P., Ed. and R. Cragie, "IPv6 over Low-Power - Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch", - RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November 2016, - . + [RFC8025] Thubert, P., Ed., Cragie, R., and RFC Publisher, "IPv6 + over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) + Paging Dispatch", RFC 8025, DOI 10.17487/RFC8025, November + 2016, . [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., - Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment - Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, - July 2018, . - - [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, - . - - [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, - "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, + Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., and RFC + Publisher, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, + . + + [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., Perkins, + C., and RFC Publisher, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 + over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) + Neighbor Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, + November 2018, . + + [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., Farkas, J., and RFC + Publisher, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", + RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, . - [RFC8930] Watteyne, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., and C. Bormann, "On - Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multi-Hop IPv6 - Network", RFC 8930, DOI 10.17487/RFC8930, November 2020, - . + [RFC8930] Watteyne, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Bormann, C., and RFC + Publisher, "On Forwarding 6LoWPAN Fragments over a Multi- + Hop IPv6 Network", RFC 8930, DOI 10.17487/RFC8930, + November 2020, . - [RFC8931] Thubert, P., Ed., "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal - Area Network (6LoWPAN) Selective Fragment Recovery", - RFC 8931, DOI 10.17487/RFC8931, November 2020, - . + [RFC8931] Thubert, P., Ed. and RFC Publisher, "IPv6 over Low-Power + Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Selective + Fragment Recovery", RFC 8931, DOI 10.17487/RFC8931, + November 2020, . - [RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An - Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021, + [RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., Bjarnason, S., and + RFC Publisher, "An Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", + RFC 8994, DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021, . - [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, April 2021, - . - - [RFC9035] Thubert, P., Ed. and L. Zhao, "A Routing Protocol for Low- - Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Destination-Oriented - Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) Configuration Option for - the 6LoWPAN Routing Header", RFC 9035, - DOI 10.17487/RFC9035, April 2021, - . + [RFC9010] Thubert, P., Ed., Richardson, M., and RFC Publisher, + "Routing for RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy + Networks) Leaves", RFC 9010, DOI 10.17487/RFC9010, April + 2021, . -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 85] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 85] -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 + [RFC9035] Thubert, P., Ed., Zhao, L., and RFC Publisher, "A Routing + Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) + Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) + Configuration Option for the 6LoWPAN Routing Header", + RFC 9035, DOI 10.17487/RFC9035, April 2021, + . + [USE-CASES] Bernardos, C. J., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Thubert, P., and F. Theoleyre, "RAW Use-Cases", Work in Progress, Internet- @@ -4803,19 +4810,19 @@ Authors' Addresses Huawei Tech Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield, Bangalore 560037 - Karnataka - India - Phone: +91-080-49160700 - Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 86] + +Internet-Draft DAO Projection January 2023 + Karnataka + India -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 86] - -Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 + Phone: +91-080-49160700 + Email: rahul.ietf@gmail.com Michael C. Richardson @@ -4862,11 +4869,4 @@ Internet-Draft DAO Projection December 2022 - - - - - - - -Thubert, et al. Expires 10 June 2023 [Page 87] +Thubert, et al. Expires 7 July 2023 [Page 87] diff --git a/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.xml b/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.xml index 7a79b95..0813dda 100644 --- a/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.xml +++ b/draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection.xml @@ -150,8 +150,8 @@ P-Routes can be used as stand-alone Segments meant to reduce the size of the source routing headers, leveraging loose source routing operations down the main RPL DODAG. - P-Routes can also be combined with other P-Routes to form a Track signaled as - a local RPL Instance, and that provides underlay shortcuts in an existing + P-Routes can also be combined with other P-Routes to form a Track signaled + as a RPL Instance, and that provides underlay shortcuts in an existing main Instance, each with its own RIB. @@ -371,23 +371,25 @@ South East South West
TrackID - A RPL Local InstanceID that identifies a Track using the namespace owned by - the Track Ingress. The TrackID is associated with the IPv6 Address of the - Track Ingress that is used as DODAGID, and together they form a unique - identification of the Track + A RPL InstanceID (typically of a Local Instance) that identifies a Track + using the namespace owned by the Track Ingress. For Local Instances, + the TrackID is associated with the IPv6 Address of the Track Ingress that is + used as DODAGID, and together they form a unique identification of the Track (see the definition of DODAGID in section 2 of .
Namespace - The term namespace is used to refer to the scope of the TrackID. The TrackID - is locally significant within its namespace. The namespace is identified by - the DODAGID for the Track. The tuple (DODAGID, TrackID) is globally unique. + The term namespace is used to refer to the scope of the TrackID. + The TrackID is locally significant within its namespace. + For Local Instances, the namespace is identified by the DODAGID for the + Track and the tuple (DODAGID, TrackID) is globally unique. For Global + Instances, the namespace is the whole RPL domain.
Serial Track - A Track that has only one path. + A Track that has only one path from Ingress to Egress.
Complex Track @@ -414,7 +416,8 @@ South East South West RAW Architecture" as an end-to-end East-West serial path. With this specification, a Lane is installed by the Root of the main - DODAG using a Non-Storing Mode P-DAO message. + DODAG using a Non-Storing Mode P-DAO message, e.g., + I --> F --> E in . As the Non-Storing Mode Via Information option (NSM-VIO) can only signal sequences of nodes, it takes one Non-Storing Mode P-DAO message per Lane to @@ -428,7 +431,8 @@ South East South West
Segment A serial path formed by a strict sequence of nodes, along which a P-Route is - installed. + installed, e.g., + I ==> A ==> B ==> C in . With this specification, a Segment is typically installed by the Root of the main DODAG using Storing Mode P-DAO messages. A Segment is used as the topological edge of a Track joining the loose steps along the Lanes that @@ -831,20 +835,16 @@ South East South West Section 5.1. of describes the RPL Instance and - its encoding. There can be up to 128 global RPL Instances, for which there + its encoding. There can be up to 128 Global RPL Instances, for which there can be one or more DODAGs, and there can be 64 local RPL Instances, with a namespace that is indexed by a DODAGID, where the DODAGID is a Unique Local Address (ULA) or a Global Unicast Address (GUA) of the Root of the DODAG. Bit 0 (most significant) is set to 1 to signal a Local RPLInstanceID, as shown in . By extension, this specification expresses the value of the RPLInstanceID as a single integer between 128 and 191, - representing both the Local RPLInstanceID in 0..63 and Bit 0 set. - - - + representing both the Local RPLInstanceID in 0..63 in the rightmost bits + and Bit 0 set. +
Local RPLInstanceID Encoding @@ -855,10 +855,11 @@ South East South West
- A Track typically forms an underlay to the main Instance, and is associated with - a Local RPL Instance wherein the RPLInstanceID is used as the TrackID; the - encapsulating source IP address and RPI Instance are set to the Track Ingress - IP address and local RPLInstanceID, respectively (more in ). + A Track typically forms an underlay to the main Instance, and is associated + with a Local RPL Instance wherein the RPLInstanceID is used as the TrackID; + the encapsulating source IP address and RPI Instance are set to the Track + Ingress IP address and local RPLInstanceID, respectively, more in + . A Track Lane may also be used as an alternative to a Segment in the main @@ -896,7 +897,7 @@ South East South West Lane or a Segment in the P-DAO messages, either in Storing Mode (SM-VIO) or Non-Storing Mode (NSM-VIO). One P-DAO message contains a single VIO, associated to one or more RPL Target Options that signal the destination - IPv6 addresses that can reached along the Track (more in ). + IPv6 addresses that can reached along the Track (more in ). Before diving deeper into Track Lanes and Segments signaling and operation, @@ -1950,7 +1951,8 @@ C encapsulates the packet with destination of E in the Track signaled by P-DAO 1 - Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 1 is sent to C and Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 2 and 3 are sent A, as follows: + Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 1 is sent to C and Non-Storing Mode P-DAO 2 and 3 are + sent to A, as follows: P-DAO Messages @@ -2266,7 +2268,8 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 --> Note that while this specification enables building both Segments inside a - Lane (aka East-West), such as Segment 2 above which is within Lane 1, and Inter-Lane Segments (aka North-South), such as Segment 2 above which joins + Lane (aka East-West), such as Segment 2 above which is within Lane 1, + and Inter-Lane Segments (aka North-South), such as Segment 5 above which joins Lane 1 and Lane 2, it does not signal to the Ingress which Inter-Lane Segments are available, so the use of North-South Segments and associated PAREO functions is curently limited. The only possibility available at this time @@ -2436,9 +2439,9 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 the owner the address that serves as DODAGID and authoritative for the associated namespace from which the TrackID is selected. In the context of this specification, the installed route appears as a more - specific route to the Track Targets, and the Track Ingress routes + specific route to the Track Targets, and the Track Ingress forwards the packets towards the Targets via the Track using the longest match as - usual. + normal. To ensure that the PDR and P-DAO messages can flow at most times, @@ -2607,7 +2610,7 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 This document Extends the CMO to create new objects called the Via Information Options (VIO). The VIOs are the multihop alternative to the TIO (more in ). + 'viof'/>). One VIO is the stateful Storing Mode VIO (SM-VIO); an SM-VIO installs a strict hop-by-hop P-Route called a Track Segment. The other is the Non-Storing Mode VIO (NSM-VIO); the NSM-VIO installs a loose source-routed @@ -2663,7 +2666,13 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2
Amending the RPI - Sending a Packet within a RPL Local Instance requires the presence of the abstract RPL Packet Information (RPI) described in section 11.2. of in the outer IPv6 Header chain (see ). 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. + Sending a Packet within a RPL Local Instance requires the presence of the + abstract RPL Packet Information (RPI) described in section 11.2. of + in the outer IPv6 Header chain + (see ). + 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. @@ -2780,7 +2789,8 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2
Opt Data Len:
See
'O', 'R' and 'F' flags:
See . - Those flags MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver if the 'P' flag is set. + Those flags MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the + receiver if the 'P' flag is set.
Projected-Route 'P':
1-bit flag as defined in .
@@ -3039,7 +3049,7 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2
-
Via Information Options +
Via Information Options A VIO signals the ordered list of IPv6 Via Addresses that constitutes the hops of either a Lane (using Non-Storing Mode) or a Segment (using Storing @@ -3063,14 +3073,14 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 SRH-6LoRH Types would make the VIO globally shorter; this means that more than one SRH-6LoRH may be present. - The format of the Via Information Options is as follows: + The format of the Via Information Option is as follows:
VIO format 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 | P-RouteID | + | Option Type | Option Length | Flags | P-RouteID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Segm. Sequence | Seg. Lifetime | SRH-6LoRH head | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -3104,7 +3114,9 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 the Option Length is variable, depending on the number of Via Addresses and the compression applied. - +
Flags:
8-bit field. No flag is defined in this + specification. The field MUST be set to 0 by the sender and + ignored by the receiver.
P-RouteID:
8-bit field that identifies a component of a Track or the main DODAG as indicated by the TrackID field. The value of 0 is used to signal a Serial Track, i.e., made of a @@ -3275,9 +3287,11 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2
Opaque:
MAY be used to carry information that the node and the Root understand, e.g., a particular representation of the Link properties such as a proprietary Link Quality Information - for packets received from the sibling. An industrial Alliance - that uses RPL for a particular use / environment MAY redefine the - use of this field to fit its needs. + for packets received from the sibling. + In some scenarios such as the case of an Industrial Alliances that + uses RPL for a particular use / environment, this field MAY be + redefined to fit the needs of that case. +
Compression Type:
3-bit unsigned integer. This is the @@ -3423,10 +3437,11 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 The main Root MAY also use P-DAO messages to install a Track as an independent routing topology (say, Traffic Engineered) to achieve particular routing characteristics from an Ingress to Egress Endpoints. - To achieve this, the main Root MUST set up a local RPL Instance (see + To achieve this, the main Root MUST set up a Local RPL Instance (see section 5 of ), and the Local RPLInstanceID serves as the TrackID. - The TrackID MUST be unique for the IPv6 ULA or GUA of the Track Ingress that serves as DODAGID for the Track. + The TrackID MUST be unique for the IPv6 ULA or GUA of the Track Ingress + that serves as DODAGID for the Track. This way, a Track is uniquely identified by the tuple (DODAGID, TrackID) @@ -3583,10 +3598,10 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 +-----+ | ^ | | | 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 o o Ingress o o o | ^ | Projected . + o o o o o \\ o o o | | DAO | Route . + o o o o \\ o o o o | ^ | . + o o o o o Egress o o v | DAO v . o o LLN o o o | o o o o o Loose Source Route Path | o o o o v @@ -4804,7 +4819,7 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 Registration procedure is "Standards Action" . - No bit is currently assigned for the PDR-ACK Flags. + No bit is currently assigned for the VIO Flags, more in .
@@ -4825,7 +4840,7 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 - Registration procedure is "Standards Action" . The initial allocation is as indicated in : + Registration procedure is "Standards Action" . The initial allocation is as indicated in , more in :
Initial SIO Flags @@ -4866,7 +4881,8 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2 IANA is requested to update the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Flags" registry created in Section 20.11 of under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" as - indicated in : + indicated in , + more in :
@@ -4882,7 +4898,8 @@ Ingress Segment 5 Egress - Tgt 2
Destination Advertisement Object Acknowledgment Flag - IANA is requested to update the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Acknowledgment Flags" registry created in Section 20.12 of under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" as indicated in : + IANA is requested to update the "Destination Advertisement Object (DAO) Acknowledgment Flags" registry created in Section 20.12 of under the heading "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)" as indicated in , + more in :