idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits24395/draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-01.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (June 19, 2014) is 2893 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3775' is defined on line 433, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 436, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4443' is defined on line 442, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6282' is defined on line 457, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture' is defined on line 479, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology' is defined on line 485, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3963' is defined on line 496, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4389' is defined on line 506, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-04 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture has been published as RFC 9030 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-6tisch-terminology-00 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-roll-terminology has been published as RFC 7102 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 15 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6Lo P. Thubert, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft cisco 4 Intended status: Standards Track June 19, 2014 5 Expires: December 19, 2014 7 Requirements for an update to 6LoWPAN ND 8 draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-01 10 Abstract 12 Work presented at the 6TiSCH and 6MAN working groups suggest a number 13 of enhancements to the 6LoWPAN ND mechanism. This document 14 elaborates on such requirements. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2014. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ 40 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 41 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 42 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 43 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 44 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 45 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3. Suggested operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3.1. RPL Leaf Support in 6LoWPAN ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 3.2. registration Failures Due to Movement . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 3.3. Optimistic registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55 3.4. RPL root vs. 6LBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 4. Suggested Changes to Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 4.1. ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 4.2. ND Router Advertisement (RA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 4.3. RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 4.4. ND Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO) . . . . . . 8 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 1. Introduction 71 A number of use cases, including the Industrial Internet, require a 72 large scale deployment of sensors that can not be realized with wires 73 and is only feasible over wireless Low power and Lossy Network (LLN) 74 technologies. When simpler hub-and-spoke topologies are not 75 sufficient for the expected throughput and density, mesh networks 76 must be deployed, which implies the concepts of hosts and routers, 77 whether operated at Layer-2 or Layer-3. 79 The IETF has designed the LLN host-to-router and router-to-router 80 protocol that supports address assignment and the router-to-router 81 protocol that supports reachability across Route-Over LLNs in 82 different Areas. It was clear for both efforts that the scalability 83 requirements could only be met with IPv6 [RFC2460], and there is no 84 fundamental contradiction between those protocols to that regard. 86 While DHCPv6 is still a viable option in LLNs, the new IETF standard 87 that supports address assignment specifically for LLNs is 6LoWPAN ND, 88 the Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks 89 [RFC6775]. 6LoWPAN ND was designed as a stand-alone mechanism 90 separately from its IETF routing counterpart, the IPv6 Routing 91 Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks [RFC6550] (RPL), and the 92 interaction between the 2 protocols was not defined. 94 The 6TiSCH WG is now considering an architecture [I-D.ietf-6tisch- 95 architecture] whereby a 6LowPAN ND host could connect to the Internet 96 via a RPL Network, but this requires additions to the protocol to 97 support mobility and reachability. 99 At the same time, new work at 6MAN on Efficiency aware IPv6 Neighbor 100 Discovery Optimizations [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] 101 suggests that 6LoWPAN ND can be extended to other types of networks 102 on top of the Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) for which it was 103 already defined. The value of such extension is especially apparent 104 in the case of mobile wireless devices, to reduce the multicast 105 operations that are related to classical ND ([RFC4861], [RFC4862]) 106 and plague the wireless medium. In this context also, there is a 107 need for additions to the protocol. 109 The"Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection" [RFC4429](ODAD) 110 specification details how an address can be used before a Duplicate 111 Address Detection (DAD) is complete, and insists that an address that 112 is TENTATIVE should not be associated to a Source Link-Layer Address 113 Option in a Neighbor Solicitation message. As we expect the 6LoWPAN 114 ND protocol for a more general use, it can make sense to keep 115 respecting that rule, which is another change to the specification. 117 This document proposes a limited evolution to [RFC6775] so as to 118 allow operation of a 6LoWPAN ND node as a leaf to a RPL network, and 119 enable a more generalized use of the formats therein outside of the 120 strict LLN domain. 122 2. Terminology 124 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 125 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 126 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 128 Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts 129 that are discussed in "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6" 130 [RFC4861], "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862], 131 "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): 132 Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919], 133 Neighbor Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks 134 [RFC6775] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 135 Networks" [RFC4944]. 137 Additionally, this document uses terminology from 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf- 138 6tisch-terminology] and ROLL [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]. 140 3. Suggested operations 142 The 6TiSCH architecture expects that a 6LoWPAN device can connect as 143 a leaf to a RPL network, where the leaf support is the minimal 144 functionality to connect as a host to a RPL network without the need 145 to participate to the full routing protocol. The support of leaf can 146 be implemented as a minor increment to 6LoWPAN ND, with the 147 additional capability to carry a sequence number that is used to 148 track the movements of the device, and optionally some information 149 about the RPL topology that this device will join. 151 The scope of the 6TiSCH Architecture is a Backbone Link that 152 federates multiple LLNs as a single IPv6 Multi-Link Subnet. Each LLN 153 in the subnet is anchored at a Backbone Router (6BBR). The Backbone 154 Routers interconnect the LLNs over the Backbone Link and emulate that 155 the LLN nodes are present on the Backbone by proxy-ND operations. An 156 LLN node can move freely from an LLN Route-Over mesh anchored at a 157 Backbone Router to another anchored at same or a different Backbone 158 Router inside the Multi-Link Subnet and conserve its addresses. 160 ---+------------------------ 161 | Plant Network 162 | 163 +-----+ 164 | | Gateway 165 | | 166 +-----+ 167 | 168 | Backbone Link (with VLANs) 169 +--------------------+------------------+ 170 | | | 171 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 172 | | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone 173 | | router | | router | | router 174 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 175 | | | | | | 176 0 0 0 0 0 (6LBR == RPL root) 177 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 178 o o o o o o o o o o (6LR == RPL router) 179 o o o o o o o z 180 o o o o o z 181 RPL Instances (6LoWPAN Host == RPL leaf) 183 The root of the RPL topology is logically separated from the 6BBR 184 that is used to connect the RPL topology to the backbone. Efficient 185 ND is a perfect interface for the RPL root to register the LLN node 186 in its topology to the 6BBR for proxy operations. It results that 187 the signalling would start at the leaf node with 6LoWPAN ND, then 188 would be carried over RPL to the RPL root, and then with Efficient-ND 189 to the 6BBR. Efficient ND being an adaptation of 6LoWPAN ND, it 190 makes sense to keep those two homogeneous in the way they use the 191 source and the target addresses in the Neighbor Solicitation (NS) 192 messages for registration, as well as in the options that they use 193 for that process. 195 6LoWPAN Node 6LR 6LBR 6BBR 196 (RPL leaf) (router) (root) 197 | | | | 198 | 6LoWPAN ND |6LoWPAN ND+RPL | Efficient ND | IPv6 ND 199 | LLN link |Route-Over mesh| IPv6 link | Backbone 200 | | | | 201 | NS(ARO) | | | 202 |-------------->| | | 203 | 6LoWPAN ND | DAR (then DAO)| | 204 | |-------------->| | 205 | | | NS(ARO) | 206 | | |-------------->| 207 | | | | DAD 208 | | | |------> 209 | | | | 210 | | | NA(ARO) | 211 | | |<--------------| 212 | | DAC | | 213 | |<--------------| | | 214 | NA(ARO) | | | 215 |<--------------| | | | 217 As the network builds up, a node should start as a leaf to join the 218 RPL network, and may later turn into a RPL router and eventually a 219 6LR as well, so as to accept leaf nodes to recursively join the 220 network. 222 3.1. RPL Leaf Support in 6LoWPAN ND 224 RPL needs a set of information in order to advertise a leaf node 225 through a DAO message and establish reachability. 227 At the bare minimum the leaf device must provide a sequence number 228 that matches the RPL specification in section 7. [I-D.chakrabarti- 229 nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] section "4.1. Address Registration 230 Option" (ARO) already incorporates that addition with a new field in 231 the option called the Transaction ID. 233 If for some reason the node is aware of RPL topologies, then 234 providing the RPL InstanceID for the instances to which the node 235 wishes to participate would be a welcome addition. In the absence of 236 such information, the RPL router must infer the proper instanceID 237 from external rules and policies. 239 On the backbone, the InstanceID is expected to be mapped onto a 240 VLANID. Neither WiFi nor Efficient ND do provide a mapping to 241 VLANIDs, and it is unclear, when a wireless node attaches to a 242 backbone where VLANs are defined, which VLAN the wireless device 243 attaches to. Considering that a VLAN is effectively the IP link on 244 the backbone, adding the InstanceID to both specifications could be a 245 welcome addition. 247 3.2. registration Failures Due to Movement 249 Registration to the 6LBR through DAR/DAC messages [RFC6775] may 250 percolate slowly through an LLN mesh, and it might happen that in the 251 meantime, the 6LoWPAN node moves and registers somewhere else. Both 252 RPL and 6LoWPAN ND lack the capability to indicate that the same node 253 is registered elsewhere, so as to invalidate states down the 254 deprecated path. 256 In its current expression and functionality, 6LoWPAN ND considers 257 that the registration is used for the purpose of DAD only as opposed 258 to that of achieving reachability, and as long as the same node 259 registers the IPv6 address, the protocol is functional. In order to 260 act as a RPL leaf registration protocol and achieve reachability, the 261 device must use the same TID for all its concurrent registrations, 262 and registrations with a past TID should be declined. The state for 263 an obsolete registration in the 6LR, as well as the RPL routers on 264 the way, should be invalidated. This can only be achieved with the 265 addition of a new Status in the DAC message, and a new error/clean-up 266 flow in RPL. 268 3.3. Optimistic registration 270 In their current incarnations, both 6LoWPAN ND and Efficient ND 271 expect that the address being registered is the source of the NS(ARO) 272 message and thus impose that a Source Link-Layer Address (SLLA) 273 option be present in the message. In the case of Efficient ND, this 274 would cause the root of the RPL network to fake the source address of 275 the packet when registering the leaf node to the 6BBR. . 277 In any case, as long as the DAD process is not complete for the 278 address used as source of the packet, it is a bad practice to 279 advertise the SLLA, since this may corrupt the ND cache of the 280 destination node, as discussed in the Optimistic DAD specification 281 [RFC4429] regarding the TENTATIVE state. 283 This may look like a chicken and an egg problem, but in fact 6LoWPAN 284 ND acknowledges that the Link-Local Address that is based on an 285 EUI-64 address of a LLN node may be autoconfigured without the need 286 for DAD. It results that the node could use that address as source 287 to register all the addresses that are expected to be reachable 288 through RPL, meaning either Global or Unique-Local Addresses. 290 The suggested change is to register the target of the NS message, and 291 use Target Link-Layer Address (TLLA) in the NS as opposed to the SLLA 292 in order to install a Neighbor Cache Entry. This would apply to both 293 Efficient ND and 6LoWPAN ND in a very same manner, with the caveat 294 that depending on the nature of the link between the 6LBR and the 295 6BBR, the 6LBR may resort to classical ND or DHCPv6 to obtain the 296 address that it uses to source the NS registration messages, whether 297 for itself or on behalf of LLN nodes. 299 3.4. RPL root vs. 6LBR 301 6LoWPAN ND is unclear on how the 6LBR is discovered, and how the 302 liveliness of the 6LBR is asserted over time. On the other hand, the 303 discovery and liveliness of the RPL root are obtained through the RPL 304 protocol. 306 When 6LoWPAN ND is coupled with RPL, it makes sense to collocate the 307 6LBR functionality and that of the RPL root. The DAR/DAC exchange 308 becomes a preamble to the DAO messages that are used from then on to 309 reconfirm the registration, thus eliminating a duplication of 310 functionality between DAO and DAR messages. 312 4. Suggested Changes to Protocol Elements 314 4.1. ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) 316 The NS message used for registration should use a source address that 317 respects the rules in [RFC6775], [RFC4861], and [RFC4429] for DAD. 318 The SLLA Option may be present but only if the address passed DAD, 319 and it is used to allow the 6LR to respond as opposed to as a 320 registration mechanism. 322 The address that is being registered is the target address in the NS 323 message and the TLLA Option must be present. 325 4.2. ND Router Advertisement (RA) 327 [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] adds an 'E' bit in the 328 Router Advertisement flag, as well as a new Registrar Address Option 329 (RAO). These fields are probably pertinent to LLNs inclusion into a 330 revised 6LoWPAN ND should be studied. 332 There is some amount of duplication between the options in the RPL 333 DIO [RFC6550] and the options in the ND RA messages. At the same 334 time, there are a number of options, including the 6LoWPAN Context 335 Option (6CO) [RFC6775], the MTU and the SLLA Options [RFC4861] that 336 can only be found in the RA messages. Considering that these options 337 are useful for a joining node, the recommendation would be to 338 associate the RA messages to the join beacon, and make them rare when 339 the network is stable. On the other hand, the DIO message is to be 340 used as the propagated heartbeat of the RPL network and provide the 341 sense of time and liveliness. 343 RAs should also be issued and the information therein propagated when 344 a change occurs in the information therein, such as a router or a 345 prefix lifetime. 347 4.3. RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) 349 If the RPL root serves as 6LBR, it makes sense to add at least a bit 350 of information in the DIO to signal so. A Registrar Address Option 351 (RAO) may also be considered for addition. 353 4.4. ND Enhanced Address Registration Option (EARO) 355 This option is designed to be used with standard NS and NA messages 356 between backbone Routers as well as between nodes and 6LRs over the 357 LLN and between the 6LBR and the 6BBR over whatever IP link they use 358 to communicate. 360 0 1 2 3 361 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 1 362 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 363 | Type | Length | Status | RPLInstanceID | 364 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 365 |Res|P|N| IDS |T| TID | Registration Lifetime | 366 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 367 | | 368 ~ Unique Interface Identifier (variable length) ~ 369 | | 370 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 372 The representation above is based on [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man- 373 efficient-nd]. Only the proposed changes from that specification are 374 discussed below but the expectation is that 6LoWPAN ND and Efficient 375 ND converge on the ARO format. 377 Status: 8-bit integer. A new value of 3 is suggested to indicate a 378 rejection due to an obsolete TID, typically an indication of a 379 movement. 381 RPLInstanceID: 8-bit integer. This field is set to 0 when unused. 382 Otherwise it contains the RPLInstanceID for which this address is 383 registered, as specified in RPL [RFC6550], and discussed in 384 particular in section 3.1.2. 386 P: One bit flag. Indicates that the address is to be redistributed 387 to obtain reachability, e.g. into the RPL protocol, or for ND 388 proxy operation. 390 N: One bit flag. Set if the device moved. If not set, the 6BBR will 391 refrain from sending gratuitous NA(O) or other form of distributed 392 ND cache clean-up over the backbone. For instance, the flag 393 should be reset after the DAD operation upon address formation. 395 5. Security Considerations 397 This specification expects that the link layer is sufficiently 398 protected, either by means of physical or IP security for the 399 Backbone Link or MAC sublayer cryptography. In particular, it is 400 expected that the LLN MAC provides secure unicast to/from the 401 Backbone Router and secure broadcast from the Backbone Router in a 402 way that prevents tempering with or replaying the RA messages. 404 The use of EUI-64 for forming the Interface ID in the link local 405 address prevents the usage of Secure ND ([RFC3971] and [RFC3972]) and 406 address privacy techniques. Considering the envisioned deployments 407 and the MAC layer security applied, this is not considered an issue 408 at this time. It is envisioned that the device could form a single 409 CGA-based Unique Interface ID (CUID) to securely bind all of its 410 addresses. The CUID would be used as Unique Interface Identifier in 411 the ARO option and the Secure ND procedures would be changed to use 412 it as opposed to the source IPv6 address. 414 6. IANA Considerations 416 A new type is requested for an ND option. 418 7. Acknowledgments 420 Samita, Erik, JP, Eric, Thomas, you will all recognize your influence 421 in this work... 423 8. References 425 8.1. Normative References 427 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 428 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 430 [RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 431 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 433 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 434 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 436 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 437 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 439 [RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 440 for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006. 442 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S. and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 443 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 444 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 446 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W. and H. Soliman, 447 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 448 September 2007. 450 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T. and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 451 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 453 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J. and D. Culler, 454 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 455 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 457 [RFC6282] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 458 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, 459 September 2011. 461 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R., 462 Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP. and R. 463 Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and 464 Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 466 [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E. and C. Bormann, 467 "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power 468 Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, 469 November 2012. 471 8.2. Informative References 473 [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd] 474 Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., Thubert, P. and M. 475 Wasserman, "Wired and Wireless IPv6 Neighbor Discovery 476 Optimizations", Internet-Draft draft-chakrabarti-nordmark- 477 6man-efficient-nd-04, October 2013. 479 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] 480 Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and R. Assimiti, "An 481 Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 482 802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch- 483 architecture-01, February 2014. 485 [I-D.ietf-6tisch-terminology] 486 Palattella, M., Thubert, P., Watteyne, T. and Q. Wang, 487 "Terminology in IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 488 802.15.4e", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6tisch- 489 terminology-00, November 2013. 491 [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology] 492 Vasseur, J., "Terms used in Routing for Low power And 493 Lossy Networks", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-roll- 494 terminology-13, October 2013. 496 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A. and P. 497 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 498 RFC 3963, January 2005. 500 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B. and P. Nikander, "SEcure 501 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 503 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 504 RFC 3972, March 2005. 506 [RFC4389] Thaler, D., Talwar, M. and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery 507 Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006. 509 [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G. and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 510 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): 511 Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC 512 4919, August 2007. 514 Author's Address 516 Pascal Thubert, editor 517 Cisco Systems, Inc 518 Building D 519 45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200 520 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis, 06254 521 FRANCE 523 Phone: +33 497 23 26 34 524 Email: pthubert@cisco.com