idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits34887/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-11.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6550, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 3, 2017) is 1905 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis has been published as RFC 8200 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7416 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture has been published as RFC 9030 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane has been published as RFC 8994 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra has been published as RFC 8995 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch has been published as RFC 8138 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ROLL Working Group M. Robles 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Updates: 6550 (if approved) M. Richardson 5 Intended status: Standards Track SSW 6 Expires: September 4, 2017 P. Thubert 7 Cisco 8 March 3, 2017 10 When to use RFC 6553, 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 11 draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-11 13 Abstract 15 This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power 16 and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power 17 and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document 18 enumerates the cases where RFC 6553, RFC 6554 and IPv6-in-IPv6 19 encapsulation is required. This analysis provides the basis on which 20 to design efficient compression of these headers. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2017. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Sample/reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 5. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 10 63 5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 11 64 5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 12 65 5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 12 66 5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 13 67 5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 14 68 5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 14 69 5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 15 70 5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 16 71 5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 17 72 5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 18 73 5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 74 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 75 6. Non Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 76 6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . . . 21 77 6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . . . 22 78 6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 22 79 6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root . . . . . 23 80 6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . . . 24 81 6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf . . . . . 25 82 6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet . . . 25 83 6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf . . . 26 84 6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf . . 27 85 6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 28 86 6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 29 87 6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware- 88 leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 89 7. Observations about the cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 90 7.1. Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 91 7.2. Non-Storing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 92 8. 6LoRH Compression cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 93 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 94 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 95 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 96 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 97 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 98 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 99 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 101 1. Introduction 103 RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) 104 [RFC6550] is a routing protocol for constrained networks. RFC 6553 105 [RFC6553] defines the "RPL option" (RPI), carried within the IPv6 106 Hop-by-Hop header to quickly identify inconsistencies (loops) in the 107 routing topology. RFC 6554 [RFC6554] defines the "RPL Source Route 108 Header" (RH3), an IPv6 Extension Header to deliver datagrams within a 109 RPL routing domain, particularly in non-storing mode. 111 These various items are referred to as RPL artifacts, and they are 112 seen on all of the data-plane traffic that occurs in RPL routed 113 networks; they do not in general appear on the RPL control plane 114 traffic at all which is mostly hop-by-hop traffic (one exception 115 being DAO messages in non-storing mode). 117 It has become clear from attempts to do multi-vendor 118 interoperability, and from a desire to compress as many of the above 119 artifacts as possible that not all implementors agree when artifacts 120 are necessary, or when they can be safely omitted, or removed. 122 An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover 123 if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that 124 discussion. This document should not be defining anything new, but 125 it may clarify what is correct and incorrect behaviour. 127 The related document A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN (6LoRH) 128 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] defines a method to compress RPL 129 Option information and Routing Header type 3 [RFC6554], an efficient 130 IP-in-IP technique, and use cases proposed for the 131 [Second6TischPlugtest] involving 6loRH. 133 The related document updates [RFC6550]. In general, any packet that 134 leaves the RPL domain of an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT 135 be discarded, when it has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as 136 the RPI or [RFC6554] SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3. Due to changes to 137 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] the RPI Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in 138 place even if the end host does not understand it. 140 2. Terminology and Requirements Language 142 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 143 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 144 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 146 Terminology defined in [RFC7102] applies to this document: LBR, LLN, 147 RPL, RPL Domain and ROLL. 149 RPL-node: It is device which implements RPL, thus we can say that the 150 device is RPL-capable or RPL-aware. Please note that the device can 151 be found inside the LLN or outside LLN. In this document a RPL-node 152 which is a leaf of a DODAG is called RPL-aware-leaf. 154 RPL-not-capable: It is device which do not implement RPL, thus we can 155 say that the device is not-RPL-aware. Please note that the device 156 can be found inside the LLN. In this document a not-RPL-node which 157 is a leaf of a DODAG is called not-RPL-aware-leaf. 159 2.1. hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6 headers 161 The term "hop-by-hop IPv6-in-IPv6" header refers to: adding a header 162 that originates from a node to an adjacent node, using the addresses 163 (usually the GUA or ULA, but could use the link-local addresses) of 164 each node. If the packet must traverse multiple hops, then it must 165 be decapsulated at each hop, and then re-encapsulated again in a 166 similar fashion. 168 3. Sample/reference topology 170 A RPL network is composed of a 6LBR (6LoWPAN Border Router), Backbone 171 Router (6BBR), 6LR (6LoWPAN Router) and 6LN (6LoWPAN Node) as leaf 172 logically organized in a DODAG structure (Destination Oriented 173 Directed Acyclic Graph). 175 RPL defines the RPL Control messages (control plane), a new ICMPv6 176 [RFC4443] message with Type 155. DIS (DODAG Information 177 Solicitation), DIO (DODAG Information Object) and DAO (Destination 178 Advertisement Object) messages are all RPL Control messages but with 179 different Code values. A RPL Stack is showed in Figure 1. 181 RPL supports two modes of Downward traffic: in storing mode (RPL-SM), 182 it is fully stateful or an in non-storing (RPL-NSM), it is fully 183 source routed. A RPL Instance is either fully storing or fully non- 184 storing, i.e. a RPL Instance with a combination of storing and non- 185 storing nodes is not supported with the current specifications at the 186 time of writing this document. 188 +--------------+ 189 | Upper Layers | 190 | | 191 +--------------+ 192 | RPL | 193 | | 194 +--------------+ 195 | ICMPv6 | 196 | | 197 +--------------+ 198 | IPv6 | 199 | | 200 +--------------+ 201 | 6LoWPAN | 202 | | 203 +--------------+ 204 | PHY-MAC | 205 | | 206 +--------------+ 208 Figure 1: RPL Stack. 210 +---------+ 211 +---+Internet | 212 | +---------+ 213 | 214 +----+--+ 215 | DODAG | node:01 216 +---------+ Root +----------+ 217 | | 6LBR | | 218 | +----+--+ | 219 | | | 220 | | | 221 ... ... ... 222 | | | 223 +-----+-+ +--+---+ +--+---+ 224 |6LR | | | | | 225 +-----+ | | | | | 226 | | 11 | | 12 | | 13 +------+ 227 | +-----+-+ +-+----+ +-+----+ | 228 | | | | | 229 | | | | | 230 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 231 +-+---+ +-+---+ +--+--+ +- --+ +---+-+ 232 |Leaf | | | | | |Leaf| |Leaf | 233 | 6LN | | | | | | 6LN| | 6LN | 234 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+ 236 Figure 2: A reference RPL Topology. 238 Figure 2 shows the reference RPL Topology for this document. The 239 numbers in or above the nodes are there so that they may be 240 referenced in subsequent sections. In the figure, a 6LN can be a 241 router or a host. The 6LN leafs marked as (21) is a RPL host that 242 does not have forwarding capability and (25) is a RPL router. The 243 leaf marked 6LN (24) is a device which does not speak RPL at all 244 (not-RPL-aware), but uses Router-Advertisements, 6LowPAN DAR/DAC and 245 efficient-ND only to participate in the network [RFC6775]. In the 246 document this leaf (24) is often named IPv6 node. The 6LBR in the 247 figure is the root of the Global DODAG. 249 This document is in part motivated by the work that is ongoing at the 250 6TiSCH working group. The 6TiSCH architecture 251 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] draft explains the network 252 architecture of a 6TiSCH network. 254 4. Use cases 256 In data plane context a combination of RFC6553, RFC6554 and IPv6-in- 257 IPv6 encapsulation is going to be analyzed for the following traffic 258 flows. 260 This version of the document assumes the changes in 261 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] are passed (at the time to write this 262 specification, the draft is on version 05). 264 The uses cases describe the communication between RPL-aware-nodes, 265 with the root (6LBR), and with Internet. This document also describe 266 the communication between nodes acting as leaf that does not 267 understand RPL and they are part of hte LLN. We name these nodes as 268 not-RPL-aware-leaf.(e.g. section 5.4- Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 269 root) We describe also how is the communication inside of the LLN 270 when it has the final destination addressed outside of the LLN e.g. 271 with destination to Internet. (e.g. section 5.7- Flow from not-RPL- 272 aware-leaf to Internet) 274 The uses cases comprise as follow: 276 RPL-aware-leaf to root 278 root to RPL-aware-leaf 280 not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 282 root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 284 RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 286 Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 288 not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 290 Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 292 RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) 294 RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) 296 not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf (storing and non-storing) 298 not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf (non-storing) 300 This document assumes the rule that a Header cannot be inserted or 301 removed on the fly inside an IPv6 packet that is being routed. This 302 is a fundamental precept of the IPv6 architecture as outlined in 303 [RFC2460]. Extensions may not be added or removed except by the 304 sender or the receiver. 306 But, options in the Hop-by-Hop option which are marked with option 307 type 01 ([RFC2460] section 4.2 and [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]) SHOULD 308 be ignored when received by a host or router which does not 309 understand that option. 311 This means that in general, any packet that leaves the RPL domain of 312 an LLN (or leaves the LLN entirely) will NOT be discarded, when it 313 has the [RFC6553] RPL Option Header known as the RPI or [RFC6554] 314 SRH3 Extension Header (S)RH3. 316 The recent change to the second of these rules means that the RPI 317 Hop-by-Hop option MAY be left in place even if the end host does not 318 understand it. 320 NOTE: There is some possible security risk when the RPI information 321 is released to the Internet. At this point this is a theoretical 322 situation. It is clear that the RPI option would waste some network 323 bandwidth when it escapes. 325 An intermediate router that needs to add an extension header (SHR3 or 326 RPI Option) must encapsulate the packet in an (additional) outer IP 327 header. The new header can be placed is placed after this new outer 328 IP header. 330 A corollory is that an SHR3 or RPI Option can only be removed by an 331 intermediate router if it is placed in an encapsulating IPv6 Header, 332 which is addressed to the intermediate router. When it does so, the 333 whole encapsulating header must be removed. (A replacement may be 334 added). This sometimes can result in outer IP headers being 335 addressed to the next hop router using link-local addresses. 337 Both RPI and RH3 headers may be modified in very specific ways by 338 routers on the path of the packet without the need to add to remove 339 an encapsulating header. Both headers were designed with this 340 modification in mind, and both the RPL RH and the RPL option are 341 marked mutable but recoverable: so an IPsec AH security header can be 342 applied across these headers, but it can not secure the values which 343 mutate. 345 RPI should be present in every single RPL data packet. There is one 346 exception in non-storing mode: when a packet is going down from the 347 root. In a downward non-storing mode, the entire route is written, 348 so there can be no loops by construction, nor any confusion about 349 which forwarding table to use (as the root has already made all 350 routing decisions). There still may be cases (such as in 6tisch) 351 where the instanceID portion of the RPI header may still be needed to 352 pick an appropriate priority or channel at each hop. 354 In the tables present in this document, the term "RPL aware leaf" is 355 has been shortened to "Raf", and "not-RPL aware leaf" has been 356 shortened to "~Raf" to make the table fit in available space. 358 The earlier examples are more extensive to make sure that the process 359 is clear, while later examples are more concise. 361 5. Storing mode 363 In storing mode (fully stateful), the sender cannot determine whether 364 the destination is RPL-capable and thus would need an IP-in-IP 365 header. The IP-in-IP header needs to be addressed on a hop-by-hop 366 basis so that the last 6LR can remove the RPI header. Additionally, 367 The sender can determine if the destination is inside the LLN by 368 looking if the destination address is matched by the DIO's PIO 369 option. 371 The following table summarizes what headers are needed in the 372 following scenarios, and indicates when the IP-in-IP header must be 373 inserted on a hop-by-hop basis, and when it can target the 374 destination node directly. There are these possible situations: hop- 375 by-hop necessary (indicated by "hop"), or destination address 376 possible (indicated by "dst"). In all cases hop by hop can be used. 377 In cases where no IP-in-IP header is needed, the column is left 378 blank. 380 In all cases the RPI headers are needed, since it identifies 381 inconsistencies (loops) in the routing topology. In all cases the 382 RH3 is not need because we do not indicate the route in stroing mode. 384 The leaf can be a router 6LR or a host, both indicated as 6LN 385 (Figure 2). 387 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 388 | Use Case | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | 389 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 390 | Raf to root | No | -- | 391 | root to Raf | No | -- | 392 | root to ~Raf | No | -- | 393 | ~Raf to root | Yes | root | 394 | Raf to Int | No | -- | 395 | Int to Raf | Yes | raf | 396 | ~Raf to Int | root | raf | 397 | ~Raf to Int | Yes | root | 398 | Int to ~Raf | Yes | hop | 399 | Raf to Raf | No | -- | 400 | Raf to ~Raf | No | -- | 401 | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | dst | 402 | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | hop | 403 +--------------+-----------+---------------+ 405 Table 1: IP-in-IP encapsulation in Storing mode 407 5.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 409 In storing mode, RFC 6553 (RPI) is used to send RPL Information 410 instanceID and rank information. 412 As stated in Section 16.2 of [RFC6550] a RPL-aware-leaf node does 413 not generally issue DIO messages; a leaf node accepts DIO messages 414 from upstream. (When the inconsistency in routing occurs, a leaf 415 node will generate a DIO with an infinite rank, to fix it). It may 416 issue DAO and DIS messages though it generally ignores DAO and DIS 417 messages. 419 In this case the flow comprises: 421 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) 423 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 424 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 425 packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). 427 As it was mentioned In this document 6LRs, 6LBR are always full- 428 fledge RPL routers. 430 The 6LN inserts the RPI header, and sends the packet to 6LR which 431 decrements the rank in RPI and sends the packet up. When the packet 432 arrives at 6LBR, the RPI is removed and the packet is processed. 434 No IP-in-IP header is required. 436 The RPI header can be removed by the 6LBR because the packet is 437 addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LN must know that it is communicating 438 with the 6LBR to make use of this scenario. The 6LN can know the 439 address of the 6LBR because it knows the address of the root via the 440 DODAGID in the DIO messages. 442 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 443 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 444 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 445 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 446 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 447 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 448 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 449 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 450 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 452 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to root 454 5.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 456 In this case the flow comprises: 458 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 460 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 461 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 462 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). 464 In this case the 6LBR inserts RPI header and sends the packet down, 465 the 6LR is going to increment the rank in RPI (examines instanceID 466 for multiple tables), the packet is processed in 6LN and RPI removed. 468 No IP-in-IP header is required. 470 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 471 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 472 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 473 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 474 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 475 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 476 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 477 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 478 +-------------------+------+-------+------+ 480 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware-leaf 482 5.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 484 In this case the flow comprises: 486 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 488 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 489 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 490 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). 492 As the RPI extension can be ignored by the not-RPL-aware leaf, this 493 situation is identical to the previous scenario. 495 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 496 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | 497 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 498 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 499 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | 500 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 501 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 502 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | RPI (Ignored) | 503 +-------------------+------+-------+----------------+ 505 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL-aware- 506 leaf 508 5.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 510 In this case the flow comprises: 512 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) 514 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 515 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 516 packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For 517 example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the 518 IPv6 node. 520 When the packet arrives from IPv6 node to 6LR_1, the 6LR_1 will 521 insert a RPI header, encapsuladed in a IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 522 IPv6-in-IPv6 header can be addressed to the next hop, or to the root. 523 The root removes the header and processes the packet. 525 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 526 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 527 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 528 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 529 | headers | | | | | 530 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 531 | headers | | | | | 532 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 533 | headers | | | | | 534 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 535 | headers | | | | | 536 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | 537 | headers | | | | | 538 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 540 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 541 root 543 5.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 545 RPL information from RFC 6553 MAY go out to Internet as it will be 546 ignored by nodes which have not been configured to be RPI aware. 548 In this case the flow comprises: 550 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet 552 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 553 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 554 packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. 556 No IP-in-IP header is required. 558 Note: In this use case we use a node as leaf, but this use case can 559 be also applicable to any RPL-node type (e.g. 6LR) 561 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 562 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | 563 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 564 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | 565 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 566 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 567 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- | 568 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | RPI (Ignored) | 569 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 571 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 572 Internet 574 5.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 576 In this case the flow comprises: 578 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 580 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 581 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 582 packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). 584 When the packet arrives from Internet to 6LBR the RPI header is added 585 in a outer IPv6-in-IPv6 header and sent to 6LR, which modifies the 586 rank in the RPI. When the packet arrives at 6LN the RPI header is 587 removed and the packet processed. 589 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 590 | Header | Interne | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 591 | | t | | | | 592 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 593 | Inserted | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 594 | headers | | IP(RPI) | | | 595 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 596 | headers | | | | | 597 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 598 | headers | | | | | 599 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 600 | headers | | | | | 601 | Untouche | -- | -- | -- | -- | 602 | d | | | | | 603 | headers | | | | | 604 +----------+---------+--------------+---------------+---------------+ 606 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL-aware- 607 leaf 609 5.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 611 In this case the flow comprises: 613 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> 614 Internet 616 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 617 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 618 packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. 620 The 6LR_1 (i=1) node will add an IP-in-IP(RPI) header addressed 621 either to the root, or hop-by-hop such that the root can remove the 622 RPI header before passing upwards. 624 The originating node will ideally leave the IPv6 flow label as zero 625 so that the packet can be better compressed through the LLN. The 626 6LBR will set the flow label of the packet to a non-zero value when 627 sending to the Internet. 629 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 630 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | 631 | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | 632 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 633 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 634 | d | | IP(RPI) | | | | 635 | headers | | | | | | 636 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 637 | headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | 638 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 639 | added | | | | | | 640 | headers | | | | | | 641 | Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 642 | d | | | IP(RPI) | | | 643 | headers | | | | | | 644 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 645 | ed | | | | | | 646 | headers | | | | | | 647 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 649 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 650 Internet 652 5.8. Example of Flow from Internet to non-RPL-aware-leaf 654 In this case the flow comprises: 656 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 658 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 659 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 660 packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 662 The 6LBR will have to add an RPI header within an IP-in-IP header. 663 The IP-in-IP can be addressed to the not-RPL-aware-leaf, leaving the 664 RPI inside. 666 The 6LBR MAY set the flow label on the inner IP-in-IP header to zero 667 in order to aid in compression. 669 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 670 | Header | Internet | 6LBR | 6LR_i | IPv6 | 671 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 672 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 673 | headers | | | | | 674 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 675 | headers | | | | | 676 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 677 | headers | | | | | 678 | Modified | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 679 | headers | | | | | 680 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 681 | headers | | | | (Ignored) | 682 +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+ 684 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- 685 aware-leaf 687 5.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 689 In [RFC6550] RPL allows a simple one-hop optimization for both 690 storing and non-storing networks. A node may send a packet destined 691 to a one-hop neighbor directly to that node. Section 9 in [RFC6550]. 693 In this case the flow comprises: 695 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN 697 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the common parent 698 (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers 699 (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common parent 700 (6LR_x). 702 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 703 destination 6LN. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of 704 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the common parent 705 (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 707 This case is assumed in the same RPL Domain. In the common parent, 708 the direction of RPI is changed (from increasing to decreasing the 709 rank). 711 While the 6LR nodes will update the RPI, no node needs to add or 712 remove the RPI, so no IP-in-IP headers are necessary. This may be 713 done regardless of where the destination is, as the included RPI will 714 be ignored by the receiver. 716 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 717 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x (common | 6LR_id | 6LN | 718 | | src | | parent) | | dst | 719 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 720 | Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | 721 | headers | | | | | | 722 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 723 | headers | | | | | | 724 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 725 | headers | | | | | | 726 | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | 727 | headers | | | | | | 728 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 729 | headers | | | | | | 730 +---------------+--------+--------+---------------+--------+--------+ 732 Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 733 aware-leaf 735 5.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf 737 In this case the flow comprises: 739 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 740 6LN (IPv6) 742 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (6LN) to the common 743 parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of 744 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from 6LN to the common 745 parent (6LR_x). 747 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 748 destination not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", 749 m is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the 750 common parent (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 752 This situation is identical to the previous situation Section 5.9 753 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 754 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_ia | 6LR_x(common | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 755 | | src | | parent) | | | 756 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 757 | Inserted | RPI | -- | -- | -- | -- | 758 | headers | | | | | | 759 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 760 | headers | | | | | | 761 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 762 | headers | | | | | | 763 | Modified | -- | RPI | RPI | RPI | -- | 764 | headers | | | | | | 765 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI(Ignored) | 766 | headers | | | | | | 767 +-----------+------+--------+---------------+--------+--------------+ 769 Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 770 aware-leaf 772 5.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 774 In this case the flow comprises: 776 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> common parent (6LR_x) --> 777 6LR_id --> 6LN 779 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-aware 6LN 780 (IPv6)) to the common parent (6LR_x) In this case, "1 <= ia >= n", n 781 is the number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from source 782 to the common parent. 784 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the common parent (6LR_x) to 785 destination 6LN. In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of 786 routers (6LR) that the packet go through from the common parent 787 (6LR_x) to destination 6LN. 789 The 6LR_ia (ia=1) receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and 790 inserts and the RPI header encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The 791 IP-in-IP header is addressed to the destination 6LN. 793 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 794 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_ia | common | 6LR_id | 6LN | 795 | | | | parent | | | 796 | | | | (6LRx) | | | 797 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 798 | Insert | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 799 | ed hea | | IP(RPI) | | | | 800 | ders | | | | | | 801 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | 802 | d head | | | | | IP(RPI) | 803 | ers | | | | | | 804 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 805 | added | | | | | | 806 | header | | | | | | 807 | s | | | | | | 808 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 809 | ed hea | | | IP(RPI) | IP(RPI) | | 810 | ders | | | | | | 811 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 812 | hed he | | | | | | 813 | aders | | | | | | 814 +--------+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+ 816 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 817 RPL-aware-leaf 819 5.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 821 In this case the flow comprises: 823 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_1--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 824 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 dst) 826 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source (not-RPL-aware 6LN 827 (IPv6 src)) to the root (6LBR) In this case, "1 < ia >= n", n is the 828 number of routers (6LR) that the packet go through from IPv6 src to 829 the root. 831 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to destination 832 (IPv6 dst). In this case, "1 <= id >= m", m is the number of routers 833 (6LR) that the packet go through from the root to destination (IPv6 834 dst). 836 This flow is identical to Section 5.11 838 The 6LR_1 receives the packet from the the IPv6 node and inserts the 839 RPI header (RPIa) encapsulated in IPv6-in-IPv6 header. The IPv6-in- 840 IPv6 header is addressed to the 6LBR. The 6LBR remove the IPv6-in- 841 IPv6 header and insert another one (RPIb) with destination to 6LR_m 842 node. 844 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 845 | Heade | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_ia | 6LBR | 6LR_m | IPv | 846 | r | 6 | | | | | 6 | 847 | | src | | | | | dst | 848 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 849 | Inser | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 850 | ted h | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | | 851 | eader | | | | | | | 852 | s | | | | | | | 853 | Remov | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 854 | ed he | | | | | | | 855 | aders | | | | | | | 856 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 857 | added | | | | | IP(RPI_b) | | 858 | heade | | | | | | | 859 | rs | | | | | | | 860 | Modif | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 861 | ied h | | | IP(RPI_a) | | IP(RPI_b) | | 862 | eader | | | | | | | 863 | s | | | | | | | 864 | Untou | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 865 | ched | | | | | | | 866 | heade | | | | | | | 867 | rs | | | | | | | 868 +-------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----+ 870 Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 871 non-RPL-aware-leaf 873 6. Non Storing mode 874 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 875 | Use Case | RPI | RH3 | IP-in-IP | IP-in-IP dst | 876 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 877 | Raf to root | Yes | No | No | -- | 878 | root to Raf | Opt | Yes | No | -- | 879 | root to ~Raf | No | Yes | Yes | 6LR | 880 | ~Raf to root | Yes | No | Yes | root | 881 | Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | 882 | Int to Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | dst | 883 | ~Raf to Int | Yes | No | Yes | root | 884 | Int to ~Raf | Opt | Yes | Yes | 6LR | 885 | Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/dst | 886 | Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | 887 | ~Raf to Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LN | 888 | ~Raf to ~Raf | Yes | Yes | Yes | root/6LR | 889 +--------------+------+------+-----------+---------------+ 891 Table 2: Headers needed in Non-Storing mode: RPI, RH3, IP-in-IP 892 encapsulation 894 6.1. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to root 896 In non-storing mode the leaf node uses default routing to send 897 traffic to the root. The RPI header must be included to avoid/detect 898 loops. 900 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root(6LBR) 902 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 903 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 904 packet go through from source (6LN) to destination (6LBR). 906 This situation is the same case as storing mode. 908 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 909 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 910 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 911 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | 912 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RPI | 913 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 914 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | 915 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 916 +-------------------+-----+-------+------+ 918 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 919 root 921 6.2. Example of Flow from root to RPL-aware-leaf 923 In this case the flow comprises: 925 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 927 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 928 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 929 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (6LN). 931 The 6LBR will insert an RH3, and may optionally insert an RPI header. 932 No IP-in-IP header is necessary as the traffic originates with an RPL 933 aware node, the 6LBR. The destination is known to RPL-aware because, 934 the root knows the whole topology in non-storing mode. 936 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 937 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 938 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 939 | Inserted headers | (opt: RPI), RH3 | -- | -- | 940 | Removed headers | -- | -- | RH3,RPI | 941 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | 942 | Modified headers | -- | RH3 | -- | 943 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | 944 +-------------------+-----------------+-------+----------+ 946 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to RPL-aware- 947 leaf 949 6.3. Example of Flow from root to not-RPL-aware-leaf 951 In this case the flow comprises: 953 root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 955 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 956 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 957 packet go through from source (6LBR) to destination (IPv6). 959 In 6LBR the RH3 is added, modified in each intermediate 6LR (6LR_1 960 and so on) and it is fully consumed in the last 6LR (6LR_n), but left 961 there. If RPI is left present, the IPv6 node which does not 962 understand it will ignore it (following 2460bis), thus encapsulation 963 is not necesary. Due the complete knowledge of the topology at the 964 root, the 6LBR is able to address the IP-in-IP header to the last 965 6LR. 967 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 968 | Header | 6LBR | 6LR_i(i=1) | 6LR_n(i=n) | IPv6 | 969 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 970 | Inserted | (opt: RPI), | -- | -- | -- | 971 | headers | RH3 | | | | 972 | Removed | -- | RH3 | -- | -- | 973 | headers | | | | | 974 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 975 | headers | | | | | 976 | Modified | -- | (opt: RPI), | (opt: RPI), | -- | 977 | headers | | RH3 | RH3 | | 978 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 979 | headers | | | | | 980 +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+ 982 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from root to not-RPL- 983 aware-leaf 985 6.4. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to root 987 In this case the flow comprises: 989 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) 991 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 992 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 993 packet go through from source (IPv6) to destination (6LBR). For 994 example, 6LR_1 (i=1) is the router that receives the packets from the 995 IPv6 node. 997 In this case the RPI is added by the first 6LR (6LR1), encapsulated 998 in an IP-in-IP header, and is modified in the followings 6LRs. The 999 RPI and entire packet is consumed by the root. 1001 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1002 | Header | IPv6 | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | 1003 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1004 | Inserted | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | -- | 1005 | headers | | | | | 1006 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | 1007 | headers | | | | | 1008 | Re-added | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1009 | headers | | | | | 1010 | Modified | -- | IP-in-IP(RPI) | IP-in-IP(RPI) | -- | 1011 | headers | | | | | 1012 | Untouched | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1013 | headers | | | | | 1014 +------------+------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 1016 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1017 root 1019 6.5. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 1021 In this case the flow comprises: 1023 RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) --> 6LR_i --> root (6LBR) --> Internet 1025 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1026 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1027 packet go through from source (6LN) to 6LBR. 1029 This case is identical to storing-mode case. 1031 The IPv6 flow label should be set to zero to aid in compression, and 1032 the 6LBR will set it to a non-zero value when sending towards the 1033 Internet. 1035 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1036 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Internet | 1037 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1038 | Inserted headers | RPI | -- | -- | -- | 1039 | Removed headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1040 | Re-added headers | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1041 | Modified headers | -- | RPI | -- | -- | 1042 | Untouched headers | -- | -- | -- | RPI (Ignored) | 1043 +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+ 1045 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 1046 Internet 1048 6.6. Example of Flow from Internet to RPL-aware-leaf 1050 In this case the flow comprises: 1052 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> RPL-aware-leaf (6LN) 1054 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1055 this case, "1 <= i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1056 packet go through from 6LBR to destination(6LN). 1058 The 6LBR must add an RH3 header. As the 6LBR will know the path and 1059 address of the target node, it can address the IP-in-IP header to 1060 that node. The 6LBR will zero the flow label upon entry in order to 1061 aid compression. 1063 The RPI may be added or not, it is optional. 1065 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1066 | Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN | 1067 | | net | | | | 1068 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1069 | Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | 1070 | ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | 1071 | ders | | | | | 1072 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | 1073 | d head | | | | pt:RPI) | 1074 | ers | | | | | 1075 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1076 | added | | | | | 1077 | header | | | | | 1078 | s | | | | | 1079 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | 1080 | ed hea | | | pt:RPI) | | 1081 | ders | | | | | 1082 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1083 | hed he | | | | | 1084 | aders | | | | | 1085 +--------+-------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ 1087 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to RPL- 1088 aware-leaf 1090 6.7. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to Internet 1092 In this case the flow comprises: 1094 not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) --> 6LR_1 --> 6LR_i -->root (6LBR) --> 1095 Internet 1096 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1097 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1098 packet go through from source(IPv6) to 6LBR. e.g 6LR_1 (i=1). 1100 In this case the flow label is recommended to be zero in the IPv6 1101 node. As RPL headers are added in the IPv6 node, the first 6LR 1102 (6LR_1) will add an RPI header inside a new IP-in-IP header. The IP- 1103 in-IP header will be addressed to the root. This case is identical 1104 to the storing-mode case (Section 5.7). 1106 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1107 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i | 6LBR | Interne | 1108 | | 6 | | [i=2,..,n]_ | | t | 1109 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1110 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | -- | 1111 | d | | IP(RPI) | | | | 1112 | headers | | | | | | 1113 | Removed | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1114 | headers | | | | IP(RPI) | | 1115 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1116 | added | | | | | | 1117 | headers | | | | | | 1118 | Modifie | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1119 | d | | | IP(RPI) | | | 1120 | headers | | | | | | 1121 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1122 | ed | | | | | | 1123 | headers | | | | | | 1124 +---------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ 1126 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1127 Internet 1129 6.8. Example of Flow from Internet to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1131 In this case the flow comprises: 1133 Internet --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_i --> not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6) 1135 6LR_i are the intermediate routers from source to destination. In 1136 this case, "1 < i >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1137 packet go through from 6LBR to not-RPL-aware-leaf (IPv6). 1139 The 6LBR must add an RH3 header inside an IP-in-IP header. The 6LBR 1140 will know the path, and will recognize that the final node is not an 1141 RPL capable node as it will have received the connectivity DAO from 1142 the nearest 6LR. The 6LBR can therefore make the IP-in-IP header 1143 destination be the last 6LR. The 6LBR will set to zero the flow 1144 label upon entry in order to aid compression. 1146 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1147 | Header | Inter | 6LBR | 6LR_1 | 6LR_i(i=2,. | IPv6 | 1148 | | net | | | .,n) | | 1149 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1150 | Insert | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3,o | -- | -- | -- | 1151 | ed hea | | pt:RPI) | | | | 1152 | ders | | | | | | 1153 | Remove | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1154 | d head | | | | IP(RH3, | | 1155 | ers | | | | RPI) | | 1156 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1157 | added | | | | | | 1158 | header | | | | | | 1159 | s | | | | | | 1160 | Modifi | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1161 | ed hea | | | IP(RH3, | IP(RH3, | | 1162 | ders | | | RPI) | RPI) | | 1163 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | RPI | 1164 | hed he | | | | | | 1165 | aders | | | | | | 1166 +--------+-------+----------------+------------+-------------+------+ 1168 NonStoring: Summary of the use of headers from Internet to non-RPL- 1169 aware-leaf 1171 6.9. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 1173 In this case the flow comprises: 1175 6LN src --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 6LN dst 1177 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1178 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of routers (6LR) that the 1179 packet go through from 6LN to the root. 1181 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1182 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1183 routers (6LR). 1185 This case involves only nodes in same RPL Domain. The originating 1186 node will add an RPI header to the original packet, and send the 1187 packet upwards. 1189 The originating node SHOULD put the RPI into an IP-in-IP header 1190 addressed to the root, so that the 6LBR can remove that header. If 1191 it does not, then additional resources are wasted on the way down to 1192 carry the useless RPI option. 1194 The 6LBR will need to insert an RH3 header, which requires that it 1195 add an IP-in-IP header. It SHOULD be able to remove the RPI, as it 1196 was contained in an IP-in-IP header addressed to it. Otherwise, 1197 there MAY be an RPI header buried inside the inner IP header, which 1198 should get ignored. 1200 Networks that use the RPL P2P extension [RFC6997] are essentially 1201 non-storing DODAGs and fall into this scenario or scenario 1202 Section 6.2, with the originating node acting as 6LBR. 1204 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1205 | Header | 6LN src | 6LR_ | 6LBR | 6LR_i | 6LN dst | 1206 | | | ia | | d | | 1207 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1208 | Inserte | IP-in- | -- | IP-in-IP(RH3 | -- | -- | 1209 | d | IP(RPI1) | | to 6LN, opt | | | 1210 | headers | | | RPI2) | | | 1211 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | 1212 | headers | | | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | 1213 | | | | | | RPI2) | 1214 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1215 | added | | | | | | 1216 | headers | | | | | | 1217 | Modifie | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1218 | d | | | | | | 1219 | headers | | | | | | 1220 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1221 | ed | | | | | | 1222 | headers | | | | | | 1223 +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+ 1225 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers for RPL-aware-leaf to RPL- 1226 aware-leaf 1228 6.10. Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1230 In this case the flow comprises: 1232 6LN --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> not-RPL-aware (IPv6) 1234 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1235 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1236 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1237 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1238 routers (6LR). 1240 As in the previous case, the 6LN will insert an RPI (RPI_1) header 1241 which MUST be in an IP-in-IP header addressed to the root so that the 1242 6LBR can remove this RPI. The 6LBR will then insert an RH3 inside a 1243 new IP-in-IP header addressed to the 6LN destination node. The RPI 1244 is optional from 6LBR to 6LR_id (RPI_2). 1246 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1247 | Header | 6LN | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 1248 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1249 | Insert | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1250 | ed hea | IP(RPI1) | | IP(RH3, opt | | | 1251 | ders | | | RPI_2) | | | 1252 | Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1253 | d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, | | 1254 | ers | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1255 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1256 | added | | | | | | 1257 | header | | | | | | 1258 | s | | | | | | 1259 | Modifi | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1260 | ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | | 1261 | ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1262 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | opt | 1263 | hed he | | | | | RPI_ | 1264 | aders | | | | | 2 | 1265 +--------+-----------+------------+-------------+------------+------+ 1267 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from RPL-aware-leaf to 1268 not-RPL-aware-leaf 1270 6.11. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to RPL-aware-leaf 1272 In this case the flow comprises: 1274 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6) --> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 1275 6LN 1277 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1278 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1280 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1281 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1282 routers (6LR). 1284 This scenario is mostly identical to the previous one. The RPI is 1285 added by the first 6LR (6LR_1) inside an IP-in-IP header addressed to 1286 the root. The 6LBR will remove this RPI, and add it's own IP-in-IP 1287 header containing an RH3 header and optional RPI (RPI_2). 1289 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1290 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | 6LN | 1291 | | 6 | | | | | 1292 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1293 | Insert | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | -- | 1294 | ed hea | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | | 1295 | ders | | | RPI_2) | | | 1296 | Remove | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | IP-in- | 1297 | d head | | | IP(RPI_1) | | IP(RH3, | 1298 | ers | | | | | opt RPI_2) | 1299 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1300 | added | | | | | | 1301 | header | | | | | | 1302 | s | | | | | | 1303 | Modifi | -- | -- | -- | IP-in- | -- | 1304 | ed hea | | | | IP(RH3, | | 1305 | ders | | | | opt RPI_2) | | 1306 | Untouc | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1307 | hed he | | | | | | 1308 | aders | | | | | | 1309 +--------+-----+------------+-------------+------------+------------+ 1311 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1312 RPL-aware-leaf 1314 6.12. Example of Flow from not-RPL-aware-leaf to not-RPL-aware-leaf 1316 In this case the flow comprises: 1318 not-RPL-aware 6LN (IPv6 src)--> 6LR_ia --> root (6LBR) --> 6LR_id --> 1319 not-RPL-aware (IPv6 dst) 1321 6LR_ia are the intermediate routers from source to the root In this 1322 case, "1 <= ia >= n", n is the number of intermediate routers (6LR) 1324 6LR_id are the intermediate routers from the root to the destination. 1325 In this case, "1 <= ia >= m", m is the number of the intermediate 1326 routers (6LR). 1328 This scenario is the combination of the previous two cases. 1330 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1331 | Header | IPv | 6LR_1 | 6LBR | 6LR_id | IPv6 | 1332 | | 6 | | | | dst | 1333 | | src | | | | | 1334 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1335 | Inserte | -- | IP-in- | IP-in-IP(RH3) | -- | -- | 1336 | d | | IP(RPI_1) | | | | 1337 | headers | | | | | | 1338 | Removed | -- | -- | IP-in- | IP-in- | -- | 1339 | headers | | | IP(RPI_1) | IP(RH3, opt | | 1340 | | | | | RPI_2) | | 1341 | Re- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1342 | added | | | | | | 1343 | headers | | | | | | 1344 | Modifie | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1345 | d | | | | | | 1346 | headers | | | | | | 1347 | Untouch | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1348 | ed | | | | | | 1349 | headers | | | | | | 1350 +---------+-----+--------------+---------------+-------------+------+ 1352 Non Storing: Summary of the use of headers from not-RPL-aware-leaf to 1353 not-RPL-aware-leaf 1355 7. Observations about the cases 1357 7.1. Storing mode 1359 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows that the hop-by-hop IP-in-IP 1360 header can be compressed using IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IP-in-IP-6LoRH) header 1361 as described in Section 7 of the document. 1363 There are potential significant advantages to having a single code 1364 path that always processes IP-in-IP headers with no options. 1366 Thanks to the relaxation of the RFC2406 rule about discarding unknown 1367 Hop-by-Hop options, there is no longer any uncertainty about when to 1368 use an IPIP header in the storing mode case. The RPI header SHOULD 1369 always be added when 6LRs originate packets (without IPIP headers), 1370 and IPIP headers should always be added (addressed to the root when 1371 on the way up, to the end-host when on the way down) when a 6LR finds 1372 it needs to insert an RPI header. 1374 In order to support the above two cases with full generality, the 1375 different situations (always do IP-in-IP vs never use IP-in-IP) 1376 should be signaled in the RPL protocol itself. 1378 7.2. Non-Storing mode 1380 In the non-storing case, dealing with non-RPL aware leaf nodes is 1381 much easier as the 6LBR (DODAG root) has complete knowledge about the 1382 connectivity of all DODAG nodes, and all traffic flows through the 1383 root node. 1385 The 6LBR can recognize non-RPL aware leaf nodes because it will 1386 receive a DAO about that node from the 6LN immediately above that 1387 node. This means that the non-storing mode case can avoid ever using 1388 hop-by-hop IP-in-IP headers. 1390 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows how the destination=root, and 1391 destination=6LN IP-in-IP header can be compressed down to {TBD} 1392 bytes. 1394 Unlike in the storing mode case, there is no need for all nodes to 1395 know about the existence of non-RPL aware nodes. Only the 6LBR needs 1396 to change when there are non-RPL aware nodes. Further, in the non- 1397 storing case, the 6LBR is informed by the DAOs when there are non-RPL 1398 aware nodes. 1400 8. 6LoRH Compression cases 1402 The [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] proposes a compression method 1403 for RPI, RH3 and IPv6-in-IPv6. 1405 In Storing Mode, for the examples of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non- 1406 RPL-aware-leaf and non-RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf comprise 1407 an IP-in-IP and RPI compression headers. The type of this case is 1408 critical since IP-in-IP is encapsulating a RPI header. 1410 +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ 1411 |1 | 0|0 |TSE| 6LoRH Type 6 | Hop Limit | RPI - 6LoRH | LOWPAN IPHC | 1412 +--+-----+---+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+ 1414 Figure 3: Critical IP-in-IP (RPI). 1416 9. IANA Considerations 1418 There are no IANA considerations related to this document. 1420 10. Security Considerations 1422 The security considerations covering of [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] apply 1423 when the packets get into RPL Domain. 1425 The IPIP mechanism described in this document is much more limited 1426 than the general mechanism described in [RFC2473]. The willingness 1427 of each node in the LLN to decapsulate traffic and forward it could 1428 be exploited by nodes to disguise the origin of an attack. 1430 Nodes outside of the LLN will need to pass IPIP traffic through the 1431 RPL root in order to exploit perform this attack, so the RPL root 1432 SHOULD either restrict ingress of IPIP packets (the simpler 1433 solution), or it SHOULD do a deep packet inspection wherein it walks 1434 the IP header extension chain until it can inspect the upper-layer- 1435 payload as described in [RFC7045]. In particular, the RPL root 1436 SHOULD do BCP38 ([RFC2827]) processing on the source addresses of all 1437 IP headers that it examines in both directions. 1439 Nodes with the LLN are able to use the IPIP mechanism to mount an 1440 attack on another part of the LLN, while disguising the origin of the 1441 attack. The mechanism can even be abused to make it appear that the 1442 attack is coming from outside the LLN, and unless countered, this 1443 could also be to mount a Distributed Denial of Service attack upon 1444 nodes elsewhere in the Internet. See [DDOS-KREBS] for an example of 1445 this. 1447 While a typical LLN may be a very poor origin for attack traffic, as 1448 the networks tend to very slow, and the nodes often have very low 1449 duty cycles, given enough of them, they could still have a 1450 significant impact, particularly on another LLN. Additionally, not 1451 all uses of RPL involve large backbone ISP scale equipment 1452 [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. 1454 Blocking or careful filtering of IPIP traffic entering the LLN as 1455 described above will make sure that any attack that is mounted must 1456 be originated from compromised nodes within the LLN. The use of 1457 BCP38 filtering at the RPL root on egress traffic will both alert the 1458 operator to the existence of the attack, as well as drop the attack 1459 traffic. As the RPL network is typically numbered from a single 1460 prefix, which is itself assigned by RPL, BCP38 filtering involves a 1461 single prefix comparison and should be trivial to automatically 1462 configure. 1464 There are some scenarios where IPIP traffic SHOULD be allowed to pass 1465 through the RPL root, such as the IPIP mediated communications 1466 between a new Pledge and the Join Coordinator when using 1467 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] and 1469 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join]. This is the case for the 1470 RPL root to do careful filtering: it occurs only when the Join 1471 Coordinator is not co-located inside the RPL root. 1473 With the above precautions, an attack using IPIP tunnels will be by a 1474 node within the LLN on another node within the LLN. Such an attack 1475 could, of course, be done directly. An attack of this kind is 1476 meaningful only if the source addresses are either fake or if the 1477 point is for return traffic to be the attack. Such an attack, could 1478 also be done without the use of IPIP headers using forged source 1479 addresses. If the attack requires bi-directional communication, then 1480 IPIP provides no advantages. 1482 [RFC2473] suggests that tunnel entry and exit points can be secured, 1483 via the "Use IPsec". This solution has all the problems that 1484 [RFC5406] goes into. In an LLN such a solution would degenerate into 1485 every node having a tunnel with every other node. It would provide a 1486 small amount of origin address authentication at a very high cost; 1487 doing BCP38 at every node (linking layer-3 addresses to layer-2 1488 addresses, and to already present layer-2 cryptographic mechanisms) 1489 would be cheaper should RPL be run in an environment where hostile 1490 nodes are likely to be a part of the LLN. 1492 The RH3 header usage described here can be abused in equivalent ways 1493 to the IPIP header. In non-storing networks where an RH3 may be 1494 acted upon, packets arriving into the LLN will be encapsulated with 1495 an IPIP header in order to add the needed RH3 header. As such, the 1496 attacker's RH3 header will not be seen by the network until it 1497 reaches the end host, which will decapsulate it. An end-host SHOULD 1498 be suspicious about a RH3 header which has additional hops which have 1499 not yet been processed, and SHOULD ignore such a second RH3 header. 1501 In addition, the LLN will likely use [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 1502 to compress the IPIP and RH3 headers. As such, the compressor at the 1503 RPL-root will see the second RH3 header and MAY choose to discard the 1504 packet if the RH3 header has not been completely consumed. A 1505 consumed (inert) RH3 header could be present in a packet that flows 1506 from one LLN, crosses the Internet, and enters another LLN. As per 1507 the discussion in this document, such headers do not need to be 1508 removed. However, there is no case described in this document where 1509 an RH3 is inserted in a non-storing network on traffic that is 1510 leaving the LLN, but this document SHOULD NOT preclude such a future 1511 innovation. It should just be noted that an incoming RH3 must be 1512 fully consumed, or very carefully inspected. 1514 The RPI header, if permitted to enter the LLN, could be used by an 1515 attacker to change the priority of a packet by selecting a different 1516 RPL instanceID, perhaps one with a higher energy cost, for instance. 1518 It could also be that not all nodes are reachable in an LLN using the 1519 default instanceID, but a change of instanceID would permit an 1520 attacker to bypass such filtering. Like the RH3, an RPI header is to 1521 be inserted by the RPL root on traffic entering the LLN by first 1522 inserting an IPIP header. The attacker's RPI header therefore will 1523 not be seen by the network. Upon reaching the destination node the 1524 RPI header has no further meaning and is just skipped; the presence 1525 of a second RPI header will have no meaning to the end node as the 1526 packet has already been identified as being at it's final 1527 destination. 1529 The RH3 and RPI headers could be abused by an attacker inside of the 1530 network to route packets on non-obvious ways, perhaps eluding 1531 observation. This usage is in fact part of [RFC6997] and can not be 1532 restricted at all. This is a feature, not a bug. 1534 [RFC7416] deals with many other threats to LLNs not directly related 1535 to the use of IPIP headers, and this document does not change that 1536 analysis. 1538 11. Acknowledgments 1540 This work is partially funded by the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training 1541 Network (ITN) METRICS project (grant agreement No. 607728). 1543 The authors would like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and 1544 comments of Robert Cragie, Simon Duquennoy, Cenk Guendogan, Peter van 1545 der Stok, Xavier Vilajosana and Thomas Watteyne. 1547 12. References 1549 12.1. Normative References 1551 [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis] 1552 Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1553 (IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08 (work 1554 in progress), November 2016. 1556 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1557 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1558 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1559 . 1561 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1562 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 1563 December 1998, . 1565 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 1566 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 1567 December 1998, . 1569 [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: 1570 Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source 1571 Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, 1572 May 2000, . 1574 [RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec 1575 Version 2", BCP 146, RFC 5406, DOI 10.17487/RFC5406, 1576 February 2009, . 1578 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., 1579 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, 1580 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for 1581 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, 1582 DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012, 1583 . 1585 [RFC6553] Hui, J. and JP. Vasseur, "The Routing Protocol for Low- 1586 Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) Option for Carrying RPL 1587 Information in Data-Plane Datagrams", RFC 6553, 1588 DOI 10.17487/RFC6553, March 2012, 1589 . 1591 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 1592 Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol 1593 for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, 1594 DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, 1595 . 1597 [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing 1598 of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, 1599 DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, 1600 . 1602 [RFC7416] Tsao, T., Alexander, R., Dohler, M., Daza, V., Lozano, A., 1603 and M. Richardson, Ed., "A Security Threat Analysis for 1604 the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks 1605 (RPLs)", RFC 7416, DOI 10.17487/RFC7416, January 2015, 1606 . 1608 12.2. Informative References 1610 [DDOS-KREBS] 1611 Goodin, D., "Record-breaking DDoS reportedly delivered by 1612 >145k hacked cameras", September 2016, 1613 . 1616 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] 1617 Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode 1618 of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 (work 1619 in progress), January 2017. 1621 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join] 1622 Richardson, M., "6tisch Secure Join protocol", draft-ietf- 1623 6tisch-dtsecurity-secure-join-01 (work in progress), 1624 February 2017. 1626 [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] 1627 Behringer, M., Eckert, T., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic 1628 Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control- 1629 plane-05 (work in progress), January 2017. 1631 [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] 1632 Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason, 1633 S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key 1634 Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping- 1635 keyinfra-04 (work in progress), October 2016. 1637 [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] 1638 Thubert, P., Bormann, C., Toutain, L., and R. Cragie, 1639 "6LoWPAN Routing Header", draft-ietf-roll-routing- 1640 dispatch-05 (work in progress), October 2016. 1642 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet 1643 Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet 1644 Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, 1645 DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 1646 . 1648 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. 1649 Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over 1650 Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", 1651 RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, 1652 . 1654 [RFC6997] Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and 1655 J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes 1656 in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997, 1657 DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013, 1658 . 1660 [RFC7102] Vasseur, JP., "Terms Used in Routing for Low-Power and 1661 Lossy Networks", RFC 7102, DOI 10.17487/RFC7102, January 1662 2014, . 1664 [Second6TischPlugtest] 1665 "2nd 6Tisch Plugtest", . 1668 Authors' Addresses 1670 Maria Ines Robles 1671 Ericsson 1672 Hirsalantie 11 1673 Jorvas 02420 1674 Finland 1676 Email: maria.ines.robles@ericsson.com 1678 Michael C. Richardson 1679 Sandelman Software Works 1680 470 Dawson Avenue 1681 Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7 1682 CA 1684 Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca 1685 URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/ 1687 Pascal Thubert 1688 Cisco Systems, Inc 1689 Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille 1690 Batiment T3, Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 1691 France 1693 Email: pthubert@cisco.com